To see the shift in sample representation you have compare the past, for each area, with the present for the same areas. I have presented that data in the past and don’t have the time, or the interest, to dig up those facts of change yet again.
That is just pure nonsense and shows you don't understand what you are talking about. To see the effects of a shift in sample size you have to compare the change in sample sizes in areas with high breeding rates with the change in sample size in the areas with low breeding rates ,which is what I did and it proved that breeding rates did not decrease due to a shift in sample size and location. ,which you failed to comprehend. So maybe you weren't lying and just didn't understand that very simple explanation.
In fact, it simply doesn’t matter if the statewide breeding rates declined or not since we don’t manage deer anywhere in the statewide based on that statewide data. All units are managed based on the data for that specific unit. That unit specific data is pretty favorable and proving that the current management objectives are working toward the intended, unit specific, goals and objectives all across the state.
The decrease in statewide breeding rates matter more than you think, because breeding rates were suppose to increase in all WMUs as a result of the combined effects of HR and ARs. The fact that they decreased statewide proves that HR and ARs had no positive effect on the health of the herd which is a direct contradiction to what hunters were told regarding why we had to reduce the herd.