I am not here to make enemies.Disagreements are bound to occur.For me it is a matter of conduct.To site a Newsweek article that is completely absurd.(I have read it) It was not factually supported at all.To use this as a basis of fact undermines any credibility an author may have in my mind.The vast majority of deer or elk killed in any hunted populationare not mature males,you can goback for decades and this will continue to be the case.The premise of the article was not even close to being the case.
It goes without saying that if there are more adult males in a population as a result of management practices more will be shot but that doesn't mean that the health or viability of the remainder of poulation will be negatively effected.If you were to use the premise of the article or the premise of your position the reverse would be true more older age class males would be doing the breeding because there would be many more of them.The genetic inferiority position is without merit because it discounts the role of the female (doe) in the equation and it is simply not true as it relates to the male,if they were a late born fawn then it is just a matter of them catching up.They are not genetically inferior and there hae been many studies to support that.Kroll,Ozaga,Larue,Koerth,Alsheimer,all have written extensively regarding this.
It appears to me that you are intenton your opinion and could care less about any information that is provided to refute the stance you have taken.
I am always receptive to a change of my views if credible information is provided.You havn't done that.
I did not single you out personally you have done that to me.I am sure you can imagine how much your opinion of me matters to me!If you guessed it doesn't at all you would be right! I would be more concerned if I was your kind of person!