[blockquote]quote:
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[/blockquote]
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.
As usual you quote just a part of something and not the whole content. While it's true that that quote, narrowly interpereted and without the rest of Dr Kroll writings, only addresses the culling of first year bucks, the rest of the content of the study and subsequent writings about it supporta spread AR over a point count in all young bucks which he later defines as under 4.5 but Dr Kroll
supports AR as a direct conclusion of his research.
As for your suggestion that he promotes the culling of inferior 3.5 bucks, he has clearly stated that the practice is less than ideal. It really doesnt matter with PA because so many bucks die the first season that they are legal.
So what we have from Dr Kroll is that we cant tell the genetic potential from a bucks antlers till he's 4.5. We are therefore not taking out the bucks with the best genes unless a buck manages to get to be 4.5 and still isn't legal (highly unlikely)
It's clear now thatthe only real measurable benefit so far in PA is that more buckssurvive their first season. Hunter experience and taxidermist reports overwhelmingly support the fact that average antlers of the buck harvested are better because average age has risen.
We don't know yet how many more get past 2.5 simply because they didn't get killed while young and inexperienced but it stands to reason that at least a fewbucks benefit from the free pass the first year and grow clever enough to live a bit longer.
BTW, just so you understand my position here is what I am saying. The average 2.5 buck produced by a non-AR herd will be bigger than the average 2.5 produced by an AR herd. Both the Kroll study and the statewide results from Miss. confirm that position. Now can you produce anything to refute it.
Dr Kroll refuted the Mississippi study for several valid reasons. They have been laid out on this forum and supporting links were provided over and over again. Just because you can't abide being proven wrong, doesn't mean that if you repeat your distortion later that we will accept it.
If you ever expect anyone to take your posts seriously, you need to present the entire context when you quote. And once again, quoting a terribly written unsupported anti hunting article from Newsweek was a new low. How can you expect anyone to believe your facts when you cite sourse like that one to support your position?
Until you at least agree that the Newsweek article is bogus the BS flag stays up
