been there, seen it, done that.

Sample size is small enough to make it inconclusive without using three years of data and averaging and RSB also pointed out a shift in the weighting by sample locations.

Once again, you were presented with valid facts and you chose to dismiss them. The only thing left to do is to lighten it up with some humor because you've offered nothing new.


Maybe we can lace some corn with botox to make those older doe more attractive

Maybe some Viagra in the salt blocks?

The shift to 3 year averages would not account for a 5% drop in breeding rates and neither would a shift in the weighting by sample locations. The data I posted shows quite clearly that those WMUs with the highest sample size did not decrease in productivity,so there is no reason to conclude breeding rates decreased in those WMU's

Since breeding rates were expected to increase in all WMU's the changes you and RSB noted simply don't account for a 5% decrease.

OK, I give in , whats the reason for your perceived decrease in breeding rates? As a concerned hunter wanting nothing but the best for our future hunters what changes would you recommend to change the direction ofthis drastic decline?

I'm waiting for RSB to give his new version of why statewide breeding rates declined. But the correlation in the pGC data is pretty amazing.

Just in case you missed it.

Sure got real quite in here. [>:]

lol bb speachless

Sorry guys I guess he's all blah and ............yea just more blah.

No you two are still babbling away while I was in my workshop. I told you where to find the answer but you'd rather have somebody else do the work. Besides ,when I posted the answer before, nobody wanted to believe it.

He must be building abuck trap.