GZ6 Longer Season Hasn't Helped

[Tuffy]

http://web.ftc-i.net/~tuffye/mandaysharvesttrend.jpg

[Carolina]

I make and read graphs all day, and this one has me scratching my head.

[Tuffy]

Might be a wee bit sloppy...LOL. What it tries to show is the annual Man-Days per Harvest in GZ6 vs. the rest of the state. The straight lines are the trend lines extended out for the next 4 years to show that it is becoming increasingly more difficult (takes more effort) to harvest a bird in GZ6 than in the rest of the state. The trend to-date is the Excel-calculated trend line of the current data. The extension is my calculation, but I note that the line remains straight, as it should.

"Areas currently having the shorter season are 'doing better' than those that currently have the extended season." Why would we want to repeat that experience for the rest of the state?

Of course, it is only one perspective with a ton of possible explanations, but season length and this measurement are pretty significant and worth looking at, I thought.

[Hoggin]

I think it shows days hunted to kill a turkey. Looks like gz 1-5 have a lower average than gz 6

[Hoggin]

Beat me to it.

[Tuffy]

Thanks. Like most of what crosses my mind; it makes sense to me...at the moment, anyway.

[PharmHunter]

I make and read graphs all day, and this one has me scratching my head.

Thank you, it's not just me then.

[Timber Ghost]

I think it shows days hunted to kill a turkey. Looks like gz 1-5 have a lower average than gz 6

Would the fact that 5 game zones are being compared to just one not skew the data?

[Tuffy]

First...I really am sorry that it's confusing. Note the data is at the bottom. I'm open to suggestions. I have the raw data on a spreadsheet if anyone wants to see the detail. It also has the county-by-county numbers and trends, as well as the individual game zones. Maybe this one would have been better with ONLY the trend lines, but that seemed unfair.

Comparing one to five doesn't skew the data. It's total man-days divided by harvest. There could be something wrong with either of those numbers, but the result is fair, I believe. For the record, GZ3 and GZ5 are also increasing, but at only half the rate. 1,2, and 4 are all showing a declining slope.

At any rate, it was just something that I was into this morning and popped out here for the sake of discussion. I wanted to do something comparing harvest and the reproduction numbers, but really couldn't figure out to show that. I'm glad that I didn't try since I thought this one was pretty clear and I can agree that I was wrong about that.

[Timber Ghost]

Appreciate the explanation.

[surfcock]

Would be nice to have confidence intervals to see if the differences are actually significant.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Tuffy]

Very good point. I haven't done that, but do believe in the trend lines. If the differences of the trends aren't significant, they soon will be, it appears...or they could both just keep going up and change the trends. Actually, there is NOT much difference between the averages for this period, but the trends sure are measureably different. Statistically, it's a very small sample, but that's all the years for which I have seen the Man-Days. I wasn't worried about going back further because this period did seem to capture the shift, but, again, you are right about the honest-to-goodness statistics of it, especially if looking only at averages. You might say that GZ6 used to be BETTER, but isn't any longer. That seems straight.

WHY there is a divergence is much more problematic. Honestly, I think it is real, but that the season length is not THE basic problem; it does make it worse, though, IMO. There is the similar trend in a couple of other zones, but those differences take us much more back to the MoE thought as they are no more than half the slope of GZ6. Overall, the slopes look pretty significant. I'm not sure why Excel calculates the slope of 1-5 as steep as it does (-0.8), but it does. GZ6 makes sense and is +0.8. Still, that looks about right to me on the chart and the trend lines extend perfectly.

What is really needed are good estimates of harvest rates and populations over time in the two areas. This implies something about that, but I haven't put my finger on it. I think that this measure is, somehow, a measurement of harvest rate changes resulting from population changes, but it's real hard to make those calculations. The picture will have to say all there is to say for now.

[aquaman]

Does this data come from the SCDNR survey? If so wad it up and put it in the trash!