Why dont you contact Dr Kroll and enlighten him? I'm sure he'd be impressed with your expertise. Maybe you can show him the error of his ways.

Oh, and you keep ducking this question. Your credentials in wildlife management are????

Once again , I make no claim of being an expert and my credentials are the same as most other members of the MB. I have a computer and I can read and write and form my own opinion just like you. What I find amazing is that my opinion upsets you so much, while your opinions don't upset me at all. I prefer to discuss the issues while you want to discuss personalitiies and qualifications to have an opinion.

Opinions don't upset me.

Resorting tolies, fabrications, half truths, partial quotes, and partial information out of context to support an opinion DO.

This is what you said in your original post on this thread ,without providing any quotes from the article to support you claim that Dr. Kroll debunked the Miss. study.

All the things Dr. Alt said would happen didn't happen. The breeding window did not decrease , the breeding rate decreased instead of increasing, productivity decreased instead of increasing, so please tell me who is telling the truth,you or me?

BTW, Dr. Demarias did not say all spike bucks were inferior or that spike bucks couldn't develop into mature 8 or 10 pts at 4.5 years. What he said was the average 1.5 spike is inferior for the rate of antlered development and therefore,shooting the best bucks in each age class leads to high grading and smaller average rack sizes in the succeeding age class.

BT claims that Dr. Kroll debunks the AR high grading myth in the referenced article ,which is a very interesting claim since Dr. Kroll doesn't even mention high grading .Instead , Dr. Kroll makes the erroneous assertion that Dr. Demarias claimed all spike bucks were inferior ,when Dr. Demarias never made that claim. Dr Kroll also made the false assertion that in order for ARs to work the deer doe herd had to be reduced. ARs will always increase the percentage of 2.5 buck in the herd regardless of whether the doe herd is reduced.

Actually it's very simple without a proper doe harvest the trickle down effect is that there is less habitat, less food and more does to be bred. The whole point of combining AR's with an increased doe harvest is to improve the gene pool, not dilute it even further. Now tell me how proper nutrition has no effect on a deer's development.

That is only true if there were too many does to begin with. In PA our adult breeding B/D ratio was 1:2 before ARs were implemented and implementing ARs and reducing the herd did nothing to improve breeding rates or recruitment.

BTW, Dr. Kroll agrees that a 1:2 B/D ratio is as natural as a 1:1 B/D ratio, so we didn't need ARs in PA to improve the B/D ratio and it explains why breeding rates didn't improve.

However it doesn't explain why the rates and productivity decreased.

Again, a very simple answer, in PA the PGC cowtowed to the insurance companies and issues too many doe permits. Look at 2Gthe deer population has been pretty much decimated. While it's true that there have been way too many antlerless permits sold it is also true that an even bigger factoris that many are not happy with the two or three tags they can legally obtain and poach the hell out of the deer. I know of about ten guys that take more than there legal share of deer every year. I've even complained to the game warden's but the response is if we don't catch them they can't do anything.

The insurance companies were not behind the push for higher doe kills. DCNR and the timber industry were the driving force along with the AUdubon Soc.