Your distortions and twisting has been pointed out again and again and your only response is to continue to cling to that minscule decrease in breeding rates which was also explained to the satisfaction of the vast majority of members here.
Now there is a classic example of your lies and distortions. A 5% decrease in statewide breeding rates is a huge change when you consider that breeding rates were supposed to increase as the herd was reduced. When you combine the effect of Hr, reduced breeding rates the result is a huge decrease in the number of fawns recruited.
You absolutely had a cow when it was pointed out that less than 15% of the does killed in the mortality study and you refused to accept the reality of those figures. Yes the question of whether or not hunters avoided tagged deer remains unanswered but that small percentage of hunter mortality tells a tale far more complex tale than "hunters may have avoided shooting tagged deer
The study was conducted after the herd in 2G had been reduced from 5 DPSM to 8 or 9 DPSM and the doe tag allocation was reduced from 52,000 to 26,000 and the undeniable fact is that ,according to the PGC experts, the harvest kept the herd stable. That fact proves beyond a doubt that the harvest rate for does in the study did not accurately reflect the harvest rate for for all doe in 2G.
On the other hand, when RSB acknowledged the slight decrease in breeding rates and explained that there had also been a shift in the sampling emphasis to areas with traditionally lower breeding rates, you dismissed that and even tried to present an example using made up numbers
I clearly stated that the example I provided was to demonstrate that a shift in sample size and location could not account for a 5% decline in breeding rates and my example proved it beyond a doubt and your example with exaggerated numbers failed miserably in your attempt to refute my example.