[blockquote]quote:
EVERY quote you listed from the article was presented out of context or prefaced by a statement by you that madethe post a lie. [/blockquote]
Anytime you think you are up to defending that claim , please feel free to put those quotes in their proper context . Then everyone will see I did not misrepresent what Dr. Kroll said in the article.
You're making it too easy.... like shooting a 1.5 year old buck in the rut!!
OK here we go for starters. You said....
What is even more amazing is the reasons Kroll gave for the need for ARs. Here is the first one.
[blockquote]quote:
First,the average age of hunters is increasing annually.[/blockquote]
and then you said.....
Here is the second reason he gave for implementing ARs.
[blockquote]quote:
Second, the number of hunters are decreasing(as much as 10% in the last five years[/blockquote]
So the first two reasons have nothing to do with improving the breeding ecology, recruitment ,productivity or rack size!!!
and then you said.....
here's Kroll's third and most interesting reason for ARs.
[blockquote]quote:
And last, deer populations are increasing. Hunting has not been controlling the deer herds in North America.[/blockquote]
These are indeed quotes from Dr Krolls articles but they are not his reasons for supporting AR as you cleverly claimed. The intro to thiose lines was " Why should we protect yearling bucks? To answer that question, three important facts must be considered"
His reasons folow the introduction. You oversimplified and claimed the above statements to be his reasons for supporting the protection of yearling bucks. They were simply some lead in information.
His first actual reason is to promote a natural deer herd with a natural buck doe ratio
Another reason Dr Kroll cites is that studies have shown that the non hunting population is only liley to support hunting if hunting is an important component in healthy deer management. AR with a proper doe harvest promotes that "natural herd"
You were the first one to raise the issue of Dr. Kroll's article and claimed that he pointed out the flaws in the Miss. study. As yet you have provided nothing valid,from the article to support your position. It would be a copyright violation to post the entire article, but you are free to provide quotes to support your position, if you can find one.
Dr. Krolls article does nothing to refute the findings of Dr. DEmarais studies in Miss. and it does nothing to support a need for ARs in PA.
Nothing but point out that Dr Demariis assumed that spike bucks are genetically inferior and then go on to point out the evidence that genetic tendencies cant be determined by antler size of yearing bucks.
Nothing but point out that the Mississsippi study was done in an area wher the doe harvest was 2.3 does per thousand acres or to put it another way, a doe harvest of 1.5 per square mile
He did, as pointed out here before, say that a spread limit was more likely to be successful over a point requirement.
If you think lie is too harsh a word, too bad!!! You misrepresented the quotes. period.