ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
No, I have consistently said spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development and there is no evidence that it is not due to being genetically inferior.
(The red ink was my editing)
Classic Bluejob BS
Dr Kroll's study conclusions
absolutely said that genetics were
not inferior in juvenile spikes.
Why do QDM manager agree with culling small older buck with scrap racks?
QDM managers agree with culling smaller
mature bucks. QDM managers do not encourage culling 2.5 bucks becasue 2.5 isn't even close to a mature buck. It may be as close as the majority of PA deer get but 2.5 is still a juvenile.
Just more Bluejob BS
Once again while accusing me of spreading BS it is actually you that is not telling the truth. Here is an actual quote from Kroll's study.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Our results suggest there is no predictable relationshipbetween a male's first set of antlers and those produced atmaturity in a free-living environment. For unexplainedreasons, it appears to take some animals more time tomanifest their antler growth potential. We found nophenotypic basis for removing young males based onnumber of points on their first set of antlers as part of agenetic improvement strategy. We believe no genetic,improvement or increase in overall antler size of matureanimals would be expected by culling of spikes and othersmall-antiered yearling
All that Kroll said is there is no genetic basis for culling spikes as 1.5 buck and I agree with that statement. But ARs doesn't just protect 1.5 spikes , it also protects 2.5+ spikes and other inferior non-AR legal buck. Kroll did not say all 1.5 spikes were genetically equal to 6 or 8 pts. and he had no explanation for the slow rate of antler development of 1.5 spikes. He also supports culing bucks at 3.5 which means he agrees that some buck are genetically inferior for antler development.
Now there is the cold hard truth with no name calling or insults. See if you can match that.