here is my favorite example of the PGC presenting data in an attempt to hide the real data every hunter would understand.
Table 8. Change (λa) in deer density by WMU, 2004 to 2007,
Pennsylvaniab.
WMU 2004 2005 2006 2007
1A 0.96 1.03 1.12 0.72
1B 0.96 1.05 1.07 0.95
2A 0.97 1.01 0.93 0.91
2B 1.07 1.07 1.12 0.78
2C 0.85 0.96 1.03 1.10
2D 0.92 0.96 1.02 0.88
2E 0.83 1.14 0.88 0.91
2F 0.90 0.88 0.93 0.85
2G 0.89 0.95 1.06 0.77
3A 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.97
3B 1.00 0.94 0.96 1.09
3C 0.90 0.92 1.10 0.83
3D 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.95
4A 0.90 0.78 1.35 1.29
4B 0.89 0.83 1.24 0.80
4C 1.03 0.90 0.97 0.87
4D 0.85 0.90 1.14 0.82
4E 0.88 1.08 0.83 0.93
5A 1.00 0.81 1.07 1.06
5B 0.91 0.96 1.04 0.87
5C 0.97 1.03 0.92 0.94
5D 1.13 0.83 0.79 0.83
a λ = 1.00 indicates no change in deer density. Values greater than
1.00 indicate increases, less than 1.00 indicate decreases.
b λs from prior years may not match λs previously reported because
λs are updated as new harvest and population data become available.
At the same time they claim the doe allocations are designed to keep the herd stable.