If the results of the Koerth Study are valid and spikes have the same genetic potential as 4 pts, then the fact that Miss. harvests their buck before the rut would be irrelevant. Furthermore, in Miss. they carryover at least 70% of their 1.5 buck, so there are plenty of 1.5 bucks passing on their genes. Also, in Miss. they carry over around 50% of their 2.5 buck ,so if the theory of dominant breeding works, the 2.6+ buck will be doing most of the breeding.
That comments proves you that either have no idea how high grading could occur when you harvest the bucks with the best antlers prior to the breeding season or that you are just posting more deceptive nonsense to further your misguided agenda.
The fact that a state carries over a high percentage of the younger bucks really has no meaning what so ever in the genetic carry over discussion if they are harvesting the best bucks prior to the breeding season. In that case, as occurs in Mississippi, they very well might have been high grading and damaging the antler potential of their future bucks because they were shooting 30% of their best 1 ½ year old before they had a change to pass on their genetic line. That could then also result in reduced genetic potential in each age class to follow.
That is the reason there is no valid comparison between the Mississippi and Arkansas antler restrictions results and the way antler restrictions and harvests occur in Pennsylvania. It would just be an apples to plums comparison.
The decrease in rack sizes was observed across the entire state over a 12 yr. period, so you are simply trying to induce other variables to muddy the waters since you have nothing to refute the facts.
Really!
Many environmental variables extend into decades. The habitat and antler development variables across the northern tier of this state changed greatly over each of the past several decades before antler restrictions were even a thought in this state. That can be seen pretty easily by looking at the variance in the number of record book bucks from the various regions of this state over the past decades before antler restrictions. What is to say that similar habitat and environmental variables didn’t create the change in the antler development in Mississippi?
Post a link to the entire journal and we can then all take a look at the various methods and controls used to assure that the results weren’t biased by anything other then genetic high grading.
While that may be true, their are no studies based on genetics that prove ARs have no negative effect on the gene pool. As yet, I am not aware of any study that has established acceptable criteria for determining how ARs effect genetics in a wild herd. But we have the Koerth which documents spikes develop slower than 4 pts. and we have the results from Miss, that documented a significant decrease in rack size over 12 years. And, we also have PA which refuses to release the data on rack sizes of various age classes and the head of the deer management team that claims he doesn't know if rack sizes have increased or decreased.
Though the affects of antler restrictions on a wild deer population are still unproven one way or the other the fact still remains that the most knowledgeable on the subject don’t believe it is possible to alter the genetic where you harvest after the breeding season certainly gives credence to the Pennsylvania management objectives.
As for spikes taking longer to catch up that has been reported by the professional researchers as nothing more then an age or early stage nutritional factor and the length of time it takes the younger bucks to catch up in both body and antler development. It is about like comparing first grades to forth graders in size and development. By the time they are both in college as a freshman and senior though that first grader that is now a college freshman might very well be the larger more dominate of the two.
When the Game Commission has the funding to complete some of the data collection, your camp’s law suits are no longer an issue and the time is right to release reliable data results then the results will be made public. That time is not yet right since the data is still being collected and thus inconclusive at this time.
I didn't reduce the buck harvest from 203K in 2001 to 119K in 2007.
No you didn’t all alone, though people just like you had a large hand in that buck harvest reduction.
The first factor in the buck harvest reduction has to come from the fact that the entire objective of antler restrictions was intended to reduce the buck harvests so we had more bucks in the next fall population. That was a totally planned occurrence.
The place you and your camp have to take blame is in the fact that we should have had the deer herd in balance with the existing habitat a long time ago and would have had it not been for the never ending public and political pressures to carry far to many deer for way to long. That carrying too many deer and damaged habitat is a large part of why the fawn recruitment crashed following those hard winters. Since those fawns that died within days of being born aren’t out there as adult bucks now, your camp actually did help in the present reduced buck harvests. Hunters can’t harvest something that doesn’t exist because it died right after it was born since it’s mother didn’t have enough food to nourish it.
I didn't implement concurrent seasons which magnifies the negative effect of HR.
That is only a negative for a relatively short period of time so that we can have a brighter future for the longer term. Responsible professionals have to look at the big picture for the future instead of selling out the future to have more for the short term now.
I didn't mislead the hunters and tell them the B/D ratio was skewed and we needed to shoot more doe.
No one was mislead about the need for or the intent to reduce the deer numbers across this state or about the need for a more balanced buck/doe ratio. Those were biological facts that the deer were screaming out to every professional willing to even look at the facts the deer were providing. Some hunters just refuse to accept those facts, perhaps because they are self serving and could care less about the future of the resources.
Those are just a few of the things the PGC did to adversely affect the future of hunting.
Actually the present management objectives are the best possible direction for assuring a better future for the deer, their food supplies and the hunter of the future. Failure to keep the deer numbers within the limits of their food supply is direction that will absolutely guarantee even fewer deer for the future. That is nature’s law not the Game Commission’s.
Nature guarantees that no living organism can exist in populations greater then the food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions. Nature also has proven time and again that the populations will increase as their habitat and food supply improves enough to support a higher population.
I just point out their mistakes on the MB,which has no effect on the future of hunting.
Oh my no! The people like you that have worked to undermine the direction of sound scientific deer and habitat management have been the biggest factor in damaging the present deer population. That has been the case for many decades. We could and would have a lot more deer over most of this state today if the hunters and politicians had allowed the professionals to do what they have known needed to be done for a long, long time.
The hunters and politicians of this state have done far more to harm the deer populations, the habitat and the future of hunting in this state then the anti-hunters or any other group of people have. You and people like you really are a very large part of the damage to not only the future for deer numbers but also the future of hunting in this state.
R.S. Bodenhorn