If you want to increase your odds of shooting a 4.5 year old deer,shoot a big doe. But what you are really saying is you'd rather shoot a big racked buck once every 10 years than settle for a buck with a smaller rack.

In 2 G your chances of harvesting a 4.5 buck might be as much as once in 30 years and if your a rifle hunter you might easily go ten years without a chance to harvest any AR legal buck.

So in effect everyone agrees that the current AR's have NO effect on genetics of the deer herd. It only took 31 pages!

Duh, what a ridiculous statement. You are comparing the culling of differing species of trees to the hunting of the same species of deer. You are straying further from sensibility there fella.

No that is not even close to what I said. What I said was is that high grading was not due to a change in the gene pool. However, the long term effects of ARs and high grading, may have a significant negative impact, in the long term, on the gene pool for the single trait of antler development. Kroll and Demarais were conducting studies on the effects of ARs on genetics ,but I haven't seen a recent report, have you?

You only think it is ridiculous because you still don't understand the concept of high grading. Maybe if I make the example a bit clearer you may be able to grasp the principle of high grading.

Let's say the stand is 100 year old stand of red ,white and chestnut oak. Now, just for the sake of discussion, let's say 60% of the oak are marketable timber and the other 40% have defects such as too many knots, sway or rot. When the 60% is harvested , the remaining trees will compete with any new seedlings and when those seedlings mature to marketable timber ,less than 50% of the stand will be marketable.

The entire forest does not get replaced every 3 years, so your analogy is a bit precarious at the very best.
If the bad trees were not marketable, they wouldn't leave them, because they will NEVER be marketable. Little bucks grow into big bucks and the entire herd gets replaced nearly completely every three years in Pa.
As I said, precarious.

Based on that statement, it is obvious that you know even less about timber management than you know about deer management. When a logger bids on a stand ,his bid is base on the value of the marketable timber. He doesn't give a rip about the unmarketable trees unless the contract forces him to cut those trees. Then the cost of cutting those trees is deducted from the bid price. But, most contracts do not require the removal of non-marketable trees , so they are left standing and only the good trees are harvested.

The analogy of high grading was provided by Dr. Demarais, not me, so why don't you send the good Dr. an e-mail and tell him his analogy is precarious?

You have just reminded me why HR was necessary, and why clearcutting is the best way. That's about it.

I have news...all timber is marketable. Some is for lumber, the rest is for pulp. Pulp big commodity. Pulp make paper, pulp make alcohol. Pulp make OSB. Pulp make lots.
Which subject do you know less of again?

Once gain you demonstrate your ignorance of the timber industry. When the cost of harvesting a tree and converting it to a useable product ,exceeds its market value , that tree will not be harvested. Proctor & Gamble is importing pulp from south America because it is cheaper that the pulpwood harvested in NE PA. The market price for hemlock is currently so low that it doesn't pay for the cost of harvesting it.