Rsb, I had a long reply and this fine site made me lose it ARGH!!! So I'll try and quickly hit my points.

I dont agree with grouping 5 year together when all it does is hide the trend of decline for doe percentage. It might be ok to do when comparing other data for other purposes, but the decline only began 4 years ago, and its a clear trend. A trend hidden by very highyear before the decline of 93% which interestingly had also been that high for a few years prior to the decline despite being the highest herd levels.

As for 2A, you have some mistakes which may make you come to the conclusion you did. I know there was alot of nonsense to sort through and alot to address, so its understandable I guess. But the trend for the regeneration was not one of decline.

Accoring to the 05 report which had it data collected from 2001 to 2004, (2As highest herd size while regen studies have been conducted) showed us at 58% regeneration.

The 2006 report had us at 61% regeneration (data from 2001-2005) You had the two years mixed up. I have the reports right here in front of me in print.

And now, that we are even lower herd density according to the herd density chart on the report, Im supposed to believe we all at once have nose dived 15% in one year into poor?? When we were just the year before WELL up into fair at 61% and nosedived to 46??

I think you missed the part about the changes in how the regen. is assessed. Its explained somewhat, and states on the report that the data cannot be compared to previous regeneration on previous reports due to changes in method. I find that more than a little hard to swallow.

Also as to the 1.37 fawn per doe in 2A, it is listed as "on target" not below target level. So shouldnt be a factor at all. But is noteworthy that the wmu is following the overall state trend of lower embryo count the more the herd has been reduced. It went from 1.45 in the 06-07 report down to 1.37 in the 07-08.

BTW, congrats on the case, great job! We could use you around here.