You flat out said it was impossible for a shift in sampling location to cause a 5% difference in breeding rates. My example merely showed that it was not only possible but in fact, exposed the fact that you needed to change another variable to make the possible appear impossible. You lied, you clearly got busted. Now why not move on?
You simply are not telling the truth. I said it was impossible for the shift in sampling to cause a 5% decrease if breeding rates increased in most WMUs as was predicted.
In your example you doubled the sample size in the areas with low breeding rates with no logical reason for doing so, since sample sizes decreased in the majority of the WMUs. Furthermore, with fewer doe producing fawns and low breeding rates sample sizes would decrease in areas with low breeding rates.
You examples proved nothing because they don't reflect what really happened in the state. You just fabricated numbers to get the desired results, which is something you accuse me of constantly. But ,you actually did it for all to see.