There doesn’t have to be a decline in any individual management unit to have a decline in the statewide result when there was such a HUGE shift in sample size between the best to worst breeding rates areas.
You are telling the truth. I posted the data that shows 2B 2C and 5C still had the highest number of doe checked. You said you were going to provide data to prove I was wrong so where is it? Maybe you should sit down with a pencil and paper and figure out just how it is possible to reduce the statewide average by 5 % without having reducing in some WMU's by over 5%.
Besides there is a more then a 13% coefficient of variance when examining or evaluating less then three years of data in a data set. Therefore, looking at it in the one year intervals, for the statewide data as you are, there actually might not even be much of a decline in those statewide results.
The 13 % variance is not a factor since the 5% decline was based on 3 year averages for both the years with the high breeding rates as well as the low breeding rates in 2007.
Once again you have failed to provide a rational answer for the decreased breeding rates even though the answer is obvious to anyone that knows anything about breeding rates.
Try explaining to everyone how having a better buck/doe ratio and better habitat lead to declining breeding and reproductive rates.
I'll give you one more chance to correct your mistakes and tell the truth before I spill the beans. Good luck.