ORIGINAL: GMMAT
And I've read studies, where having more mature bucks in the herd, supresses young bucks from breeding, hence they do not expend energy to do so, and in turn can grow and maximize thier potential sooner in life. ie you end up with a healthier herd.
I'm wondering (help me) how this constitutes a "healthier herd". Who's to say the genes the 3.5yr old is carrying are superior to the ones the 1.5yr old is carrying? Just because the 3.5yr old is doing a lot of breeding.....is this necessarily a "good" thing? IF you view a better cross-section of age groups as being a "healthier herd".....then I see your point. I look at it like this......
Give me a team of stud freshmen baseball players......and pit them against a group of mediocre juniors and seniors....and Ill take my chances with the youngsters. You're guaranteeing (by instituting AR's....in a LOT of instances) that the inferior bucks WILLlive to see another year.....when maybe they aren't the best breeding stock you have. What could be better than "natural selection".....and letting the TRUE cream of the crop rise? Will you kill some of these potential studs by NOT having AR's? Yep. Will as many inferior bucks slip through the cracks (by virtue SOLELEY of what's on their heads)? Yep. They're breeding, too.
It would seem to me.....that the bucks who elude hunters (although they risk peril, every year.....regardless of their headgear)are thegreatest examples of "natural selection". I've never seen any studies that show that a larger rack = intelligence.
Jeff, I think you and are are coming to the same question ....... Superior genes = Rack size??????? Any science behind this???