Originally Posted by
bluebird2
Inferior bucks are not the result of ARs,
Exactly my point....
Originally Posted by
bluebird2
After over 10 years of ARs in Miss. , the average rack sizes of 2.5+ buck decrease instead of increasing.
That is the size of the average 2.5yr old buck harvested and has nothing to do with the long term genetic potential of any of the bucks as a population, nor does it have to do with the size of the average buck being shot. Fact is the average size of all bucks being harvested improved dramatically.
Originally Posted by
bluebird2
Dr. Kroll's research showed that spike bucks were inferior for the rate of antler development.
Incorrect!!!...Dr. Kroll's concluded..""Studies repeatedly have shown that whitetail bucks do not reach maturity until four years of age, and by the time the bucks in our study had reached 41⁄2, there was no significant difference in any of the antler measurements, no matter what the buck started out with his first year. The antlers were just as wide, just as heavy and had just as many points. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in gross B&C score," he says. Many of the bucks that had been yearling spikes had grown 130-inch racks by age 41⁄2." "It appears from our data that the spikes and 3-pointers are genetically equal at birth to multi-point yearlings for antler growth potential," Dr. Kroll concludes. "
http://www.petersenshunting.com/cont...ng-spike-bucks
Originally Posted by
bluebird2
The data was posted in the 2007 AWR on the pGC website. Population variables should not effect breeding rates if an increase in the percentage of older buck in the herd was supposed to increase breeding rates and productivity. Breeding rates are based on the percentage of does that are bred , not on the number of does that are bred, so the size of the herd is irrelevant.
Obvioulsy a "rate" is a synonymous with "percentage"...However, that has nothing to do with whether or not an expected result is affected by any number of variables, (total population being just one of them). For example, you repeatedly qoute this 5% number and suggest it came from the state and it is proof AR's don't work....Since you seem to have all this data I asked you to post it...Please show us where the state has concluded that a 5% reduction in breeding rates has universally been caused across PA as a direct result of AR's having been implemented?....(Obviously you can't, because that is not something even a highly trained geneticists or state biologists would be foolish enough to proclaim based on such limited data and based on results with no variable controls whatsoever...In fact, I am certain that they have not even strongly hypothesize that there was a direct cause and effect relationship that has occured there...In reality, it is just your opinion that one resulted in the other simply becuause the two data points occured simultaneously.).
Finally, since you seem convinced that Ar's caused this problem and it is proof AR's are "bad"...I ask you, what does a decrease of 5% in the breeding rate have on average antler size of harvested bucks in state where there is a chronic overpopultion of whitetails and the states intended goal is population reduction?
JC