ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Kroll simply pointed out that Dr Demarais failed to consider the inadequate doe harvest and also that Dr Demaraisfailed to consider that past studies have shown conclusively that antler size in the first year has no genetic significance.
That is why I said Kroll misrepresented Dr. Demarais's position ,because Dr. D addressed both the problem of excess doe and the genetic significance of 1.5 buck. Dr. D never claimed the decrease in rack sizes was due to a change in genetics or that he agreed that once a spike always a spike as Kroll implied.
You have produced nothing that shows a correllation between the reduction in the herd and the decrease in breeding rates. You are declaring a conclusion without any real support for it other than you "think" that HR is the cause. It's easy to be an armchair biologist when you don't have to follow the principles of good research. RSB has laid out plenty of other plausible causes for the reduced breeding and recruitment rates but you stubbornly cling to only one conclusion (theone that fits your agenda) with no proof to back you up.
I produced the PGC data that showed both breeding rates and productivity declined as the herd was reduced. Implementing ARs should have had a positive effect on breeding ,not a negative effect. Fewer deer and more food per deer should have increased breeding rates and productivity, not decrease them. RSB provided nothing to explain the statewide decrease in breeding rates and productivity. We did not have severe winters across the entire state and even with the severe winters there should have been a lot more food /OWD than in 2000 when we had at least 40% more deer.
Personally, I find it amusing that RSB offers nothing but excuses when the answer for the decreased productivity is obvious. But some times the obvious is the hardest to see when your personal biases and agenda prevent you from viewing things objectively.
You're assuming the cause and effect. Yes, both HR and a decrease in productivity per animal happened at the same time but that does not prove a cause and effect relationship. There may be one, but there is no evidence to support your
THEORY. For now it's merely a theory. the problem with listening to armchair biologists is that they tend to make knee jerk judgements based on the results they want o see. Your posts are a prime example. It flies in the face of logic that less deer competing for more food wouldhave a negative effect of breeding productivitywhen there are obviously still plenty of deer out there to breed.
Your oversimplification is likeme saying it rained on Wednesday so you'd better take an umbrella next wednesday