Originally Posted by
bluebird2
No, RSB explanation was pure unadulterated horse puckey and I proved it using the PGC data. Nothing in the sampling protocol or distribution has changed from 2007 to 2008 to account for the 5% increase in breeding rates. Furthermore, since the PGC is still using 3 year averages , the change in breeding rates from 2007 to 2008 has to be much greater than 5% to raise the 3 year average by 5%.
Not quite,
Your "proof" contained hypothetical numbers made up and inserted by you to make your point. A hypothetical, "what if" example might help to demonstarte a concept but it is not a way to prove whats really happening. RSB told us that the decline in breeding rates could have been inaccurate because it was a fact that the sampling emphasis had shifted from area with traditionally higher breeding rates to areas where they had traditionally been lower. You tried to disprove that by pulling numbers out of thin air.
Do you really want us to provide the link showing your attempted deception???
You asked why the breeding rates look better now. RSB provided your answer months ago. It's quite likely that the breeding rates are simply more accurate much like the doe mortality from hunting is probably now more accurate.