The time scale is one reason that most wildlife departments managing hunting harvests simply count the heads each year and decide how many to let hunters bag without thinking about genes. The most popular method of regulating hunting"”restricting legal game to males with a minimum antler size"”results in populations overrun with females and inferior males, which is ultimately no service to hunters. "The hunters wish for animals with large antlers and large horns, and yet their actions are making that harder to achieve," says Richard Harris, a conservation biologist in Montana. As a hunter, Harris knows that the outcome of this trend will satisfy no one, the Teddy Roosevelts of the next generation least of all.
ARs are the exact opposite of the survival of the fittest and will result in smaller rack sizes, just like they observed in Miss.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
so let me see if i understand you
if we kill them when there young 1.5 we are going to have larger horns but if we let them go till
there 2.5 + it will make horns smaller is that what your saying bluebird or am i misunderstanding
you
that link went on about elphants and such
bluebird2=BS. No offense meant, but that falls under the category of don't believe everything you read. The only way that theory could be true is if the majority of buck allowed to reach 2.5 and older are inferior to begin with. THAT is not believable.
__________________
No matter how good you think you are, it's about being in the right place at the right time.
so let me see if i understand you
if we kill them when there young 1.5 we are going to have larger horns but if we let them go till
there 2.5 + it will make horns smaller is that what your saying bluebird or am i misunderstanding
you
that link went on about elphants and such
On average, 2.5 buck will always have larger racks than the average 1.5 buck. But the 2.5+ buck produced by an AR herd ,will on average be smaller than a 2.5 buck produced by a non-AR herd.
The last paragraph of the article also talked about deer and the effects of ARs.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
bluebird2=BS.Â* No offense meant, but that falls under the category of don't believe everything you read.Â* The only way that theory could be true is if the majority of buck allowed to reachÂ* 2.5 and older are inferior to begin with.Â* THAT is not believable.
Â*
Before you tell some one they are posting BS , you should at least take the time to educate yourself on the subject. If the article was BS ,can you explain why the results of ARs in Miss. support the conclusions of the article?
Quote:
The only way that theory could be true is if the majority of buck allowed to reach 2.5 and older are inferior to begin with.
The majority of bucks saved by ARs are in fact inferior to the average buck saved in a non-AR herd. The Kroll study in Texas proved spikes were inferior for the rate of antler development.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
The article does not say that superior buck do most of the breeding. What it says is that the bucks saved by ARs are inferior breeders,because on average they are inferior deer, not because they don't do their fair share of the breeding.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
There's no mystery males with big horns tend to be larger and produce larger offspring. During the fall rut, or breeding season, these alpha mate more than any other males, by winning fights or thwarting other males' access to their ewe
ARs= The Survival of the Weak and Scrawny
