don’t distort any of the data I always tell everyone exactly what it is and where it came from. As for using five year averages that too is a widely used and even the most accepted way of determining trends since annual data frequently tends to show high or low bias based on the influence from any one or more of many other factors
But it is not used by the very agency you work for and the only reason you use 5 year averages is to disguise the effects of HR. The PGC increased antlerless tags in 2G from 19K in 2006 to 29K in 2007, based on a 40% increase in the buck harvest in 2006. But after 2007 they revised the increase to 6%, but the 2007 harvest reduced the 2G herd by 23%. Five year averages are meaningles, deceutful and misleading when the goal is to reduce the herd by 5% /yr.
You and some others simply don’t like averages because they prove that the trends frequently don’t support what you want people to believe. You continuously make your objections so the appropriate thing is to just allow people to see both sides and make up their minds are to which seems more logical and consistent with their experiences and knowledge
That is just pure nonsense. five year trends are meaningless when a biased individual like you select the five year periods they chose to use while omitting years that don't fit their agenda. the decline in the breeding rates are based on 3 year averages ,but only due to lack of adequate data, the decline in the buck harvest is based on yearly harvest data as it should be. the simple fact is that you hitched yourself to a wagon that is too heavy for you to pull because the facts simply don't support your misguided agenda.