There has been a lot of attention focused on the Divisions crossbow survey and how it is being used to support the current crossbow proposal. Let’s see how the survey really addresses the current crossbow proposal, which is to allow crossbows in all bow seasons, for all hunters. The numbers I am using are directly from the survey, but for some reason, they have not been presented to us in this fashion before. I will let those who read this decide why that is for themselves.
Opinions on why they omitted this information aside, these numbers are the hard facts, right from the Divisions own survey, as it relates to the current proposal, and cannot be disputed. You can try to deflect from them, try to spin them, you can try to dilute them with, or bury them under, other numbers that are not directly related to the proposal, and you can try to ignore them, and I would suggest that the F&G Council, the Division and the crossbow advocates have been very good at all of these tactics. However, you cannot refute them, as they are directly from the survey. Those of you who wanted facts, here are some to chew on.
The current crossbow proposal is for all bow seasons for all ages. The Division and F&G Council are using the conclusions of this survey to support that proposal. So, what did the survey tell us about the feelings of the respondents of this proposal?
Any survey, especially a Government poll or document, particularly when a desire has already been expressed (remember, they already tried to get crossbows in once, before the survey, so we know what their objective is), should never be taken at face value, and a close examination needs to take place.
The Division tells us 2030 surveys were mailed, and 1047 hunters responded.
The survey states that support for crossbows (either strong or moderate) was 73 percent. The actual number of those who responded in either strong or moderate support were: strong=553, moderate=202, for a total of 755. 755 is actually 72.1 percent of 1047, close enough. However, this support figure includes various forms, including some respondents who chose only certain seasons, and various age restrictions. Any and all support indicated is lumped in this number, it is not accurate to say this support is unrestricted, for all bow seasons.
Next, as related to the proposal, the survey states that of those who supported crossbows (755 people), 54 percent supported crossbows in all bow seasons. 54 percent of 755 = 407 people. Here is the part where they got tricky.
That 54 percent is not an accurate portrayal of support of the respondents because is not the percentage OF THOSE SURVEYED, only of those who supported crossbows. To get the true percentage of those surveyed who actually supported crossbows in all bow seasons, we find that 407 = 38.8 percent of the 1047 respondents, or of those surveyed.
A common tactic when attempting to manipulate statistics is to narrow down your sample size as small as possible, while maintaining your desired result, to falsely enlarge the amount of support for your target outcome. They did that over and over again in their presentation of the data in this survey, but we will only examine the numbers as they relate to the current proposal, since that proposal is what we have to deal with. It would take pages and pages to parse the entire survey.
So, 38.8 percent supported crossbows in all bow season, which leaves us with 61.2 percent who DID NOT SUPPORT crossbows in all bow seasons. And remember, this “all bow season” support number includes all support, including the various age restriction choices, and is NOT FOR ALL AGES, all bow seasons.
Next, we will move on to the age groups, and see what the survey tells us about the current proposal.
The Survey tells us that of the respondents, 156 people supported crossbows for all ages. 156 = 15 percent of those surveyed. That would mean 85 PERCENT DID NOT SUPPORT crossbows for all ages. Remember, that is the proposal…all ages, all bow seasons.
The survey also tells us that 205 people supported crossbows for ages 17 and up. 205=19.5 percent of those surveyed. That means 80.5 percent DID NOT SUPPORT the age restriction closest to all ages, which is the proposal.
To give the Division some leeway, we can add the two together. 205 + 156 = 361 people, or 34.5 percent of the respondents who support something close to the proposal. However, that means we still have 65.5 percent who DID NOT SUPPORT even the closest thing to the proposal.
This is what the survey tells us about the feelings of those who were surveyed as it pertains to the current proposal. The other numbers tell us some nice information, but they do not pertain to the proposal, and only serve as a distraction, intentional or otherwise, from what the real results are, as they relate to the current proposal from the F&G Council.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t see overwhelming, or even mitigating support for the current proposal. If this document is used to support the game code changes, it will come under much greater scrutiny than this.
It’s no surprise I’m not happy with the Council on this issue. However, now I am even more angered. They have opened the door for one of the biggest arguments of the animal rights activists to gain a foothold in their plea to restructure the Council. Those groups opposed to us outdoorsmen and women always claim the Division, and Fish and Game Council, manipulate numbers and statistics to further their own agenda and make money from wildlife. This looks horribly just like that.
Hopefully, they will carefully examine what they have done here, and reconsider going forward with the current proposal because it is clear that their own survey does not support it. It may support something else, but it does not support what they have proposed. This could be used by those who wish to see hunting banned as powerful evidence against us.
Opinions on why they omitted this information aside, these numbers are the hard facts, right from the Divisions own survey, as it relates to the current proposal, and cannot be disputed. You can try to deflect from them, try to spin them, you can try to dilute them with, or bury them under, other numbers that are not directly related to the proposal, and you can try to ignore them, and I would suggest that the F&G Council, the Division and the crossbow advocates have been very good at all of these tactics. However, you cannot refute them, as they are directly from the survey. Those of you who wanted facts, here are some to chew on.
The current crossbow proposal is for all bow seasons for all ages. The Division and F&G Council are using the conclusions of this survey to support that proposal. So, what did the survey tell us about the feelings of the respondents of this proposal?
Any survey, especially a Government poll or document, particularly when a desire has already been expressed (remember, they already tried to get crossbows in once, before the survey, so we know what their objective is), should never be taken at face value, and a close examination needs to take place.
The Division tells us 2030 surveys were mailed, and 1047 hunters responded.
The survey states that support for crossbows (either strong or moderate) was 73 percent. The actual number of those who responded in either strong or moderate support were: strong=553, moderate=202, for a total of 755. 755 is actually 72.1 percent of 1047, close enough. However, this support figure includes various forms, including some respondents who chose only certain seasons, and various age restrictions. Any and all support indicated is lumped in this number, it is not accurate to say this support is unrestricted, for all bow seasons.
Next, as related to the proposal, the survey states that of those who supported crossbows (755 people), 54 percent supported crossbows in all bow seasons. 54 percent of 755 = 407 people. Here is the part where they got tricky.
That 54 percent is not an accurate portrayal of support of the respondents because is not the percentage OF THOSE SURVEYED, only of those who supported crossbows. To get the true percentage of those surveyed who actually supported crossbows in all bow seasons, we find that 407 = 38.8 percent of the 1047 respondents, or of those surveyed.
A common tactic when attempting to manipulate statistics is to narrow down your sample size as small as possible, while maintaining your desired result, to falsely enlarge the amount of support for your target outcome. They did that over and over again in their presentation of the data in this survey, but we will only examine the numbers as they relate to the current proposal, since that proposal is what we have to deal with. It would take pages and pages to parse the entire survey.
So, 38.8 percent supported crossbows in all bow season, which leaves us with 61.2 percent who DID NOT SUPPORT crossbows in all bow seasons. And remember, this “all bow season” support number includes all support, including the various age restriction choices, and is NOT FOR ALL AGES, all bow seasons.
Next, we will move on to the age groups, and see what the survey tells us about the current proposal.
The Survey tells us that of the respondents, 156 people supported crossbows for all ages. 156 = 15 percent of those surveyed. That would mean 85 PERCENT DID NOT SUPPORT crossbows for all ages. Remember, that is the proposal…all ages, all bow seasons.
The survey also tells us that 205 people supported crossbows for ages 17 and up. 205=19.5 percent of those surveyed. That means 80.5 percent DID NOT SUPPORT the age restriction closest to all ages, which is the proposal.
To give the Division some leeway, we can add the two together. 205 + 156 = 361 people, or 34.5 percent of the respondents who support something close to the proposal. However, that means we still have 65.5 percent who DID NOT SUPPORT even the closest thing to the proposal.
This is what the survey tells us about the feelings of those who were surveyed as it pertains to the current proposal. The other numbers tell us some nice information, but they do not pertain to the proposal, and only serve as a distraction, intentional or otherwise, from what the real results are, as they relate to the current proposal from the F&G Council.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t see overwhelming, or even mitigating support for the current proposal. If this document is used to support the game code changes, it will come under much greater scrutiny than this.
It’s no surprise I’m not happy with the Council on this issue. However, now I am even more angered. They have opened the door for one of the biggest arguments of the animal rights activists to gain a foothold in their plea to restructure the Council. Those groups opposed to us outdoorsmen and women always claim the Division, and Fish and Game Council, manipulate numbers and statistics to further their own agenda and make money from wildlife. This looks horribly just like that.
Hopefully, they will carefully examine what they have done here, and reconsider going forward with the current proposal because it is clear that their own survey does not support it. It may support something else, but it does not support what they have proposed. This could be used by those who wish to see hunting banned as powerful evidence against us.
