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.
Wrong again!! I specifically provided PGC data that showed the majority of the doe that were checked ,after breeding rates declined,were still in the southern tier counties with the highest breeding rates.
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.
Yesterday 11:23 PM
Wrong again. RSB provided his opinion of why breeding rates declined and he was wrong, just like the doe mortality stats were wrong and your claim that 80% of the deer that died in 2G died from natural causes was simply insane.