# DNR needs a math lesson



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

The survey results for the QDM in the UP do actually show that a 66% in favor answered to the survey requirements.

Simple math is this way

63.4% in favor
32.1% against
4.5 % no opinion

Therefore, throw out the no opinion. Add the 63.4 to the 32.1 and that equals 95.5

63.4/95.5 = 66.3% in favor
32.1/95.5 = 33.6% against.

You want the 66%, you got it.


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Hmmmm . . . Exactly the reason for including the "undecided" votes as "No" votes perhaps?


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Very good point  

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Sounds good to me...let's fire em!


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

I knew we had some creative folks on this site.  



> Therefore, throw out the no opinion.


But you didn't throw it out, you used that 4.5% to boost your percentage when you subtracted 4.5 from 100. If you'd truly thrown out the no opinion, then when you add the 'in favor' and the 'against' it would still add up to 100.

But if I was a teacher, I'd give you an 'A' just for creativity.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

safetree, your math is right on the money. When the "no opinion" votes are discarded, it increases the percentages of _both_ yes and no votes.

If I were a teacher, I would give you an "A" for accurate analysis.


----------



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

The simple point of this little math lesson is that you don't use the "no opinion" votes in the survey. They must automatically be tossed out. Since they make up 4.5% of the total, the total is now 95.5% and that becomes the new denominator.

I'm surprised someone hasn't called the DNR on this already. I always thought that no opinion means they didn't care one way or the other, therefore they cannot be counted when determining the opinion.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I'm going to join Ferg and recomend that if you don't like the DNR QDM survey process, then voice your opinions to them at:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153--107949--,00.html
or email them dirrectly at:
[email protected]

If you have a problem with the current QDM proposal, survey system and you won't make your opinions known the the DNR, then do you really have the right to complain?


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

After reading some explanation of why the survey of a sample method is appropriate for determining yes or no to mandatory QDM and ARs, then is it safe to assume those same persons would be comfortable with the existing survey of a sample method used by the DNR to measure hunting success (ie postcard mailings to set number of people who then voluntarily complete it and mail it in)?

Both are useful for polling, but not for major policy decisions.

Swamper


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Kinda? You threw out the 4.5% where you wanted too, kinda like manipulating the results to get your point across.


----------



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I'm going to join Ferg and recomend that if you don't like the DNR QDM survey process, then voice your opinions to them at:
> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153--107949--,00.html
> or email them dirrectly at:
> [email protected]
> ...


I agree with you wholeheartedly and I've done just that. I think the process was fine, but screwing up the math is not. Below is what I have sent to the DNR at the above address. I also included my Name address and phone number in the email. Wthout it there is no credibility to the email.

For any of you that would like to send a note as well, here's a copy of what I sent questioning their math methods that you can cut and paste from here or write up your own. (Sorry to duplicate this from above)

Jim

The survey results for the QDM in the UP do actually show that a 66% in favor answered to the survey requirements.

Simple math from the survey results show this:

63.4% in favor
32.1% against
4.5 % no opinion

You must throw out the no opinion. Add the 63.4 to the 32.1 and that equals 95.5

63.4/95.5 = 66.3% in favor
32.1/95.5 = 33.6% against.



The simple point of this little math lesson is that you don't use the "no opinion" votes in the survey against or for the results. No opinion is essentially the same as Dont care. They must automatically be tossed out. Since they make up 4.5% of the total, the total is now 95.5% and that becomes the new denominator.

I'm surprised someone hasn't called the DNR on this already. I always thought that no opinion means they didn't care one way or the other, therefore they cannot be counted when determining the opinion.



This survey supports the QDM implementation by 66.3% as required in your guidelines


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Hmmmm. Seem to recall there were some other useful, thoughtful responses here. Farmlegend? Gone? Another glitch must be. On-topic, pertinent posts surely couldn't have been removed intentionally.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Yeah call the DNR that will get you as far as it did this past firearm season :lol:  :lol:


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

On top of handling the no-opinion vote in a manner that leads those votes to be counted inappropriately as "no" votes, the DNR also goes to an extraordinary effort to get all people to respond. They do this by sending all sampled people three letters asking them to respond. When you don't respond to the first letter, the DNR sends you two "reminder" letters.

The DNR says they follow this methodology to ensure they get at least a 50% response rate. In reality, they get about an 80% response rate with this exhaustive (and what some would consider a harrassing) technique.

When people don't respond to a survey, it is usually because they don't want to deal with the issue or they have no interest in helping those conducting the survey. When those conducting the survey become pests by sending multiple reminders to potential responders, those who did not initially respond to the issue have a higher propensity to respond with a "no" on the issue.

Any one who has even an elementary understanding of statistical analysis knows that this is one potential technique that will bias the survey results in favor of "no" votes on an issue.

I will go to my grave believing the DNR and the MUCC set up this process on purpose to make it intentionally difficult to pass QDM initiatives.

I had this suspicion confirmed in a Lansing restaurant one day when one of the DNR's top biologists mistook me for an anti-QDM supporter. He took pleasure in telling me how he had hoodwinked the people from the Clare DMU118 unit into agreeing to the QDM guidelines (the 66% rule and other "barriers"). He laughed and said I've got them where I want them now! He told me he knew they could never achieve what they had agreed to.

This now retired DNR guy will probably deny that he told me that, but I'll put my reputation up against his any day. 

When I think that we got a 60% approval rate despite all this BS, I get sick to my stomach.

I don't think I can ever look at some DNR people involved in this process the same way any more. I've lost respect for a number of people involved in this process.

Integrity is an important concept to me. When you do screw up on an important integrity issue, good people step up and do the right thing.

To my disappointment, so far, I haven't seen that.


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Leon,

Many of us feel your pain and understand the feelings of frustration and disgust. I'm as fed up and disenchanted with this "Commission" as you. It's an absolute abomination in my opinion. Their decisions have been poor from the start and it runs the gamut from deer to grouse to mineral rights.

But I don't want that to paint every DNR employee in the wrong light. I believe there is a core group of old-timers that simply refuse to learn new science. They'll retire soon enough and be replaced with fresh blood and, most importantly, attitudes. But there are some tremendous people on staff (Al Stewart comes to mind as does Mark Bishop out of Yankee Springs). In fact, I'd say that "most" of the disagreement we have as hunters with the Department stems directly from the "political" positions at the Department not with the field staff for the most part. In other words, if you happen to run into a CO or field biologist, don't throttle them just because their employers have done this state a great disservice. They likely had nothing to do with the decisions made.

Most of all, Leon, keep your head up and your eyes on the horizon. This proposal has only one downside: QDM regs won't YET become law in the U.P. But QDM support has CLEARLY won over the Upper Peninsula's hunters and landowners, it's gaining momentum at lightning speed in southern Michigan and this is essentially a tidal wave that's just off shore. It's inevitable, in my opinion, that the management boom of this century is on our doorstep. And I really don't see it being stopped. In fact, I have no idea why anyone would want to try. So stay positive, exercise your rights as a citizen by posting your personal thoughts and opinions on this website and others. Yes, some will be edited, "vanish" or whatever. But their your opinions, your thoughts and those can't be taken away. Contact the NRC and let them know what you feel about the QDM proposal process. Become an active member of the QDMA (if you aren't already) and be a positive voice. We're not part of the problem here, just part of the solution. Some people never like that. But sometimes doing the right thing is a tough job.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Quote - "Any one who has even an elementary understanding of statistical analysis knows that this is one potential technique that will bias the survey results in favor of "no" votes on an issue."

Actually, this technique is intended to get as much of the sample to respond. Pretty common technique of surveys. If the number of respondents are below a predetermined minimum response level, the survey results are deemed insufficient.

Another thing to keep in mind that in essence, the survey is intended the amount of support to change from the existing status quo to something new. That is what leads to "no opinions" as being counted as no's. The assumption is that the "no opinions" have no great interest either way; therefore, they are content with the status quo. Check out a few surveys in the mail, multiple choice quizzes, etc...most will always have a similar type structure. 

As far as the quote "I will go to my grave believing the DNR and the MUCC set up this process on purpose to make it intentionally difficult to pass QDM initiatives"...that is typical of implementing major changes to society's rules and regulations. Look at the steps to get signatures on petitions to get a proposal on a ballot, then go through an election, then have legal challenges to the signatures, constitutional challenges, etc. Anytime we move away from the existing status quo, it moves slowly usually.

Swamper


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Bottom line, the NRC passed DMU118 with an initial 61% and 53% "survey", they have the power to do what they want, those in favor had almost a 2:1 margin over those opposed, and with the proposal being sound or Bob Depker wouldn't have approved it in the first place......there was ovewhelming conclusive evidence to suppor the measure. The long term positive implecations for the overwhelming support lend to a very bright future for QDM and the QDMA in the U.P., despite the NRC's lack of support or concern. If I was a NRC commisioner though, I'd have a hard time sleeping at night knowing I went against the 2:1 majority on an issue that was proven biologically sound by the DNR and any leading authority across the entire country, including Munising's own John Ozoga. That's something they will have to live with for a long time and that 2:1 majority will have a hard time forgetting.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Swamper said:


> Quote - "Any one who has even an elementary understanding of statistical analysis knows that this is one potential technique that will bias the survey results in favor of "no" votes on an issue."
> 
> Actually, this technique is intended to get as much of the sample to respond. Pretty common technique of surveys. If the number of respondents are below a predetermined minimum response level, the survey results are deemed insufficient.


First quote is right. Second is wrong. Giving folks a second chance will generally bias a survey. When folks are "pressured" to respond, no matter what the issue, they are more likely to respond "no". Besides, the number of responses has not been an issue in these proposals.

Bottom line: any qualified and unbiased observer(say, an expert with no knowledge whatsoever of the issues at play here), who is familiar with surveys, elections, and statistics, when presented with the entire story of how the proposal process was developed, and how it has been implemented, would conclude that we are dealing with a heavily stacked deck.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Farmlegend,

There has to be a minimum number of respondents to a survey to deem it a valid survey. For example, if 2000 surveys were sent out from a population of 25,000 and only 5 returned, I doubt it would be a valid survey. This is a science, not a piece of guesswork.

Swamper


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

leon said:


> I don't think I can ever look at some DNR people involved in this process the same way any more. I've lost respect for a number of people involved in this process.


With each action like this, the DNR takes a negative PR hit of epic proportions. My respect for the DNR as a whole is at an all time low. Theyre political game and fish management agendas are shameful and in some cases illegal. We were astronomically much better when the legislature was responsible for passing new or changed hunting and fishing laws. I guarantee that if 63 percent of an elected officials constituents were in favor of a particular bill, he or she would vote in favor of the measure. If proposal G were to be put up for a vote again, I bet it would get shot down big time. Its time for the DNR commission to be done away with by the repeal of Proposal G.


----------

