Firstly, did you even read the report that Bush_Walker got the figures from? It was linked from the same posting.Liamy77 wrote:This data is flawed in my opinion - it depends where and how it was gathered.... If it is only collected from clubs it is biased as it will not show true ages of all who bushwalk. It may lead to some huge errors in your conclusions if it is relied on too heavily.
Had you done so, you would have seen that the report was done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, an organisation not known for using flawed figures. It was produced by interviewing a large number (>32000) of randomly-selected Australians and asking them a series of questions.
You would also have seen that it was a report on "PARTICIPATION IN SPORT AND PHYSICAL RECREATION in Australia", so not at all focussed on bushwalking.
You would also have seen that clubs were not involved at all. And when it says "organised" that does not necessarily mean bushwalking clubs either. Commercial operations would also be included, as would walking organised by health or other groups.
So on what basis are you calling the data flawed?