I think he was clearly trying to say that we'd have more and bigger bucks because we were saving a higher percentage of 1.5 year old bucks which would allow MORE bucks to make it into older age classes thus making them BIGGER.He never even mentioned the size of the 2.5 year old bucks changing.Furthermore,age has nothing to do with genetics and studies show that antler size in not indicative of what bucks will do the breeding.
He may have been trying to say what you think he meant, but he didn't. He said there would be more and larger buck than ever before and the only way we would have larger buck than before ARs is if the size of the 2.5+ increased. Also, note that the PGC removed that claim from the Digest this year because it was clearly wrong and misleading. They also changed the claim that we should pass on BB to offset the doe heavy B/D ratio.
Furthermore,age has nothing to do with genetics and studies show that antler size in not indicative of what bucks will do the breeding.
That is true and it means we will have more inferior 2.5+ buck doing the breeding, which is the exact opposite of what Alt was claiming.
What do you think dominant breeding was supposed to accomplish? Was it supposed to create smaller 2.5+ buck or were they just supposed be more macho?