Don't get me wrong here, I’m not saying that these maps are incorrect..... but I think the way they use the “average” conception date kinda skews and paints a different picture in some areas versus what is truly happening. The big blue dot in the center of the state being a prime example…..I think due to how the average is being used, those buffer rings around it are actually showing a dilution of the dark blue as you move away from the core of that isolated doe population .....Meaning that there are fewer and fewer does with that late breeding date as you move away from the core and more does with earlier estrous dates......The "average" changes ……I also think the layout of the main interstates are why you see it dilute northwards the way you do.

What I’m saying is that if you took 100 does with 50 of them having an estrous date in say October and 50 of them having an estrous date in January and you take the “average conception date” from that…..you will come out with an average showing late November when in fact none of the 100 does actually have an estrous date during that time. The closer you get to the core area where those January does are isolated though the more January does you will pick up…..Lets say now we have 75 January does and 25 October does…..Our “average” is now more like mid December even though again we dont have any of the 100 does with December estrous dates….…..That’s how those buffer rings form around spots like the dark blue area in the center……If you sample in the dark blue area you’re likely to get 100 out of 100 with Jan estrous dates…..as you move farther away from the core of that isolated population you get less and less of them in a sample….

What likely makes things even more confusing is that an October estrous doe herd would actually have a second rut cycle occur in November which might look more intense than the first go round…..So areas where these herds intermingle may see some does in estrous for several months.

That makes sense