VHD set to decimate our rabbit population!

[ChrisJones 7,975]

3 minutes ago, stumfelter said:

That's a stupid graph.

Agreed it's not blurry at all.

[Deker 3,478]

27 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

LOL f**k me. Tell ya what I'll just agree with the GWCT and you can disagree with them. If you think that data shows the rabbit population is larger than it was pre myxi then whatever. I believe you're wrong and so does the GWTC.

What on earth are you talking about??

I said.....

It was reported a few years ago there were more rabbits in the UK than when myxomatosis was introduced.

Which part of that is wrong?

You said When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently.

Your graph clearly shows that is incorrect and my comment is accurate, the GWCT Graph shows there were circa 2.5x as many rabbit in 1995 as there were in the year before mixxy was introduced!! The graph also shows that in every year since around 1990 there have been more rabbits than when mixxy was introduced. So just how/why does that show When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently. ?

I'm not disagreeing with your graph..YOU ARE!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Deker

[terryd 8,691]

It is sad plain and simple. I have lived around this village for nearly 40 years and back then you could spend a day ferreting one hedge row. You could walk half a mile in any direction and find rabbits.

Now we have huge areas of nothing. Even the last 4 years they have taken yet another dive with farms where we could lamp 3 or 4 with ease nothing. Walked 6 fields tonight after work and nothing. Just a great shame 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

6 minutes ago, Deker said:

What on earth are you talking about??

I said.....

It was reported a few years ago there were more rabbits in the UK than when myxomatosis was introduced.

Which part of that is wrong?

You said When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently.

Your graph clearly shows that is incorrect and my comment is accurate, the GWCT Graph shows there were circa 3 x as many rabbit in 1995 as there were in the year before mixxy was introduced!!

I'm not disagreeing with your graph..YOU ARE!

Mate, youre not considering the data statistically and are only looking at two points. You can't do that in an analysis, it's completely flawed. This sort of data is statistical and as such relying on any one point to draw a conclusion is misleading.

This data is an indirect and non clinical measure of rabbit population annually. For those reasons you have to treat it statistically. You can't consider small chunks of data valid alone. For example, there's clearly a strong correlation of reduced population with the onset of the war. Thats probably not real and needs correcting for and is a good example of why you have to look at all the data. Look at the pre war and again the pre myxi data, all of it, then compare that the modern day data. There's not more rabbits.

I cant make you think critically or statistically. The GWCT draw the same conclusion I did. Explicitly! Take it or leave it.

 

[Deker 3,478]

13 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Mate, youre not considering the data statistically and are only looking at two points. You can't do that in an analysis, it's completely flawed. This sort of data is statistical and as such relying on any one point to draw a conclusion is misleading.

This data is an indirect and non clinical measure of rabbit population annually. For those reasons you have to treat it statistically. You can't consider small chunks of data valid alone. For example, there's clearly a strong correlation of reduced population with the onset of the war. Thats probably not real and needs correcting for and is a good example of why you have to look at all the data. Look at the pre war and again the pre myxi data, all of it, then compare that the modern day data. There's not more rabbits.

I cant make you think critically or statistically. The GWCT draw the same conclusion I did. Explicitly! Take it or leave it.

 

You can invent anything you like, I made an accurate statement based on your comments which were then supported by the graph YOU supplied and all you are doing now it trying to tell me the graph is not accurate and not believable.

For example, there's clearly a strong correlation of reduced population with the onset of the war. Thats probably not real and needs correcting for and is a good example of why you have to look at all the data  

Ha Ha, more ill informed guesswork on your part, the UK went mad for rabbit during the Second World War, it was fresh meat and at a premium, everyone and there mum was out after rabbit.  I see no reason to suspect that is wrong!

Lets look at this yet again...…..

I said.....

It was reported a few years ago there were more rabbits in the UK than when myxomatosis was introduced.

Which part of that is wrong?

You said When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently.

Your graph clearly shows that is incorrect and my comment is accurate, the GWCT Graph shows there were circa 2.5x as many rabbit in 1995 as there were in the year before mixxy was introduced!! The graph also shows that in every year since around 1990 there have been more rabbits than when mixxy was introduced. So just how/why does that show When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently. ?

I'm not disagreeing with your graph..YOU ARE!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Deker

[Born Hunter 17,832]

So we just gonna ignore statistics still and keep focusing on single data points?

I accept that the modern rabbit bag recovered to the 1953 level. I dont consider that conclusive 're my original statement, because it's only a small dataset. You have to look at all of it. 

I'm not arguing with you about this decker. Believe what you will. The other folks on here can do the same. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Deker 3,478]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

So we just gonna ignore statistics still and keep focusing on single data points?

I accept that the modern rabbit bag recovered to the 1953 level. I dont consider that conclusive 're my original statement, because it's only a small dataset. You have to look at all of it. 

I didn't made a comment about rabbit population since the Romans introduced the European Rabbit to the UK.

I said.....

It was reported a few years ago there were more rabbits in the UK than when myxomatosis was introduced. 

Which part of that is wrong?

You said When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently.

Your graph clearly shows that is incorrect and my comment is accurate, the GWCT Graph shows there were circa 2.5x as many rabbit in 1995 as there were in the year before mixxy was introduced!! The graph also shows that in every year since around 1990 there have been more rabbits than when mixxy was introduced. So just how/why does that show When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently. ?

I'm not disagreeing with your graph..YOU ARE!

 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

8 minutes ago, Deker said:

 

Ha Ha, more ill informed guesswork on your part, the UK went mad for rabbit during the Second World War, it was fresh meat and at a premium, everyone and there mum was out after rabbit.  I see no reason to suspect that is wrong

Guess work, lol. I said probably needs correcting because the correlation is suspicious. No guessing. A war time effect is not representative of population pressures during normal non war time. So it is suspicious in an analysis. Ignoring that completely though. Look at all the pre myxi data! Conclusion is the same.

[Elchapo 3,171]

6 hours ago, fred90 said:

there isn't a problem when you are talking them week in week out. numbers rest of us can only dream about we would do the same. 

They will be in the same situation soon ....can only kill them once . And taking 60 70 a day ain’t going do them any good 

[fred90 3,292]

1 minute ago, Elchapo said:

They will be in the same situation soon ....can only kill them once . And taking 60 70 a day ain’t going do them any good 

it's not happened for last 30 odd years so why will it change now? hosker was writing in shooting news in 80's looks like it's still same today. 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

11 minutes ago, Deker said:

I didn't made a comment about rabbit population since the Romans introduced the European Rabbit to the UK.

I said.....

It was reported a few years ago there were more rabbits in the UK than when myxomatosis was introduced. 

Which part of that is wrong?

You said When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently.

Your graph clearly shows that is incorrect and my comment is accurate, the GWCT Graph shows there were circa 2.5x as many rabbit in 1995 as there were in the year before mixxy was introduced!! The graph also shows that in every year since around 1990 there have been more rabbits than when mixxy was introduced. So just how/why does that show When myxi was introduced it knocked the population back permanently. ?

I'm not disagreeing with your graph..YOU ARE!

 

LOL, I'm not disagreeing with the graph. The graph is a collection of data points. I believe them. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of them. Because I interpret statistical data, statistically. Because I don't just consider 2 data points.

Now I'm bored. We can disagree. The graph is there for everyone to see and draw there own conclusions. No matter how many times you want to type in capitals that I'm disagreeing with the data. I just don't care enough to argue with a f***ing stranger on the internet. Lol

Edited November 12, 2018 by Born Hunter

[Elchapo 3,171]

1 minute ago, fred90 said:

it's not happened for last 30 odd years so why will it change now? hosker was writing in shooting news in 80's looks like it's still same today. 

Do you not think everyone will be at them soon enough . Them dales rabbits will be getting hit by every dog man and his granny. Then with the new virus and with mix’s and with lads taken 100s a day of there you don’t think that will take effect ? I know two or three lads who are up there taking 70 80,90 a day and I bet there are plenty more I don’t nonwho are up there taking there share too..round by me rabbits are pretty much non existent but 40 year ago old boys said they could walk ten minits from there door and in an hour come home with ten fat bunnies .. now to get ten bunnies round here you’d  have to travel an spend couple hour walking bout for them .. 

[Deker 3,478]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

LOL, I'm not disagreeing with the graph. The graph is a collection of data points. I believe them. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of them. Because I interpret statistical data, statistically. Because I don't just consider 2 data points.

Now I'm bored. We can disagree. The graph is there for everyone to see and draw there own conclusions. No matter how many times you want to type in capitals that I'm disagreeing with the data. Lol

I'm not interpreting anything, I made a statement which you have shown to be accurate but insist isn't.  There were also more rabbits in 1995 than between around 1905-1920, what's your interpretation of that then!?!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Deker

[fred90 3,292]

6 minutes ago, Elchapo said:

Do you not think everyone will be at them soon enough . Them dales rabbits will be getting hit by every dog man and his granny. Then with the new virus and with mix’s and with lads taken 100s a day of there you don’t think that will take effect ? I know two or three lads who are up there taking 70 80,90 a day and I bet there are plenty more I don’t nonwho are up there taking there share too..round by me rabbits are pretty much non existent but 40 year ago old boys said they could walk ten minits from there door and in an hour come home with ten fat bunnies .. now to get ten bunnies round here you’d  have to travel an spend couple hour walking bout for them .. 

to get ten rabbits round here you would have to raid someone's allotment shed. 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

9 minutes ago, Deker said:

I'm not interpreting anything, I made a statement which you have shown to be accurate but insist isn't.  There were also more rabbits in 1995 than between around 1905-1920, what's your interpretation of that then!?!

In 95 the rabbit bag index was what 0.7. In 1905 it was like over 0.9. So you're definitely wrong there. Also, clearly 95 is an outlier. Hence statistics.

Also, that IS an interpretation. Because what the data actually says is the rabbit bag. We're assuming that correlates with population.

Now I really am done. f**k. Lol

Edited November 12, 2018 by Born Hunter