Look, I know that our technocracy has made a lot of people into almost devoted religous believers in all things scientific. But I also see plenty of evidence that all this unquestioning belief in the infallibilty of science and numbers is often misplaced. Anyone who has closely examined the history of antlerless deer permit allocations can pretty easily spot the years when massive adjustments were required for corrections of population mis-estimates. These always came after the fact and not as a result of some predictive statistical model. Also, it has not escaped my notice that with all these mystic number-crunchings, small game bag limits and seasons have remain absolutely stagnant and unchanging for decades, showing that there is and awful lot of useless numbers manipulation that never seems to have made it into hard changes. I think it's nice to be able to believe in the infallibility of statistics or to receive some sort of comfort from the belief that there is a safety net of numbers that watch over us all. But everyday observations show us that science and math are not always infallible, and they do not provide all the solutions to everything. Used properly, they are a great tool for progress. Used or applied deceptively, fraudulently or just plain incorrectly can be a dangerous at worst and useless at best. It's also useful to consider that there are some things that do not lend themselves to reliable statistics. There is also the old "garbage in-garbage out" (GIGO) principle. My thought here is simply, do not take everything for granted simply because it has a statistcal label hung on it. If something sounds totally unbelievable, it probably is. The statistitians will definitely try to convince us to relax, sit back, and let them take care of all the world's woes. I think they need to be questioned and watched and periodically evaluated for proper application and use and results. And here in this article are some prime candidates for some close scrutiny and evaluation.