Anytime you think you are up to defending that claim , please feel free to put those quotes in their proper context . Then everyone will see I did not misrepresent what Dr. Kroll said in the article.

What is taking you so long? I thought you had documented all of my lies and just couldn't wait to reply?

You're making it too easy.... like shooting a 1.5 year old buck in the rut!!

OK here we go for starters. You said....

and then you said.....

and then you said.....

These are indeed quotes from Dr Krolls articles but they are not his reasons for supporting AR as you cleverly claimed. The intro to thiose lines was " Why should we protect yearling bucks? To answer that question, three important facts must be considered"

His reasons folow the introduction. You oversimplified and claimed the above statements to be his reasons for supporting the protection of yearling bucks. They were simply some lead in information.

His first actual reason is to promote a natural deer herd with a natural buck doe ratio
Another reason Dr Kroll cites is that studies have shown that the non hunting population is only liley to support hunting if hunting is an important component in healthy deer management. AR with a proper doe harvest promotes that "natural herd"


Nothing but point out that Dr Demariis assumed that spike bucks are genetically inferior and then go on to point out the evidence that genetic tendencies cant be determined by antler size of yearing bucks.

Nothing but point out that the Mississsippi study was done in an area wher the doe harvest was 2.3 does per thousand acres or to put it another way, a doe harvest of 1.5 per square mile

He did, as pointed out here before, say that a spread limit was more likely to be successful over a point requirement.


If you think lie is too harsh a word, too bad!!! You misrepresented the quotes. period.

I, unlike you, have a life and don't sit on the computer all the time.

But you forget that Kroll also stated that a natural B/D ratio was 1:2 ,which is what we had in PA before ARs. Furthermore, nothing Kroll stated indicated ARs would result in a healthier herd.
But, Dr. Demarais did not say or assume spikes were inferior ,so was Kroll lying about Dr. Demarais position?

You ducked my point. You misrepresented the quote. Plain and simple. Thats called a lie.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Try again or admit you are wrong, or just stop trying to defend the indefensible.

There! You went and posted something truthful. Now doesn't that feel good?

The sad part is you have no idea what you are talking about, so those who want to discuss the issues based on scientific fact, find it hard to communicate with those that can't express their ideas in a rational manner.

Kroll's reasons for ARs aren't even close to the reasons Alt gave for implementing ARs. So, is Kroll right or was Alt right or were theyboth blowing smoke?

Here is what Kroll actually said about spread restrictions.
Notice that he says nothing about improved breeding rates, improved productivity or improved herd health. In PA we had an adult B/D breeding ratio of 1:2 before ARs and we had higher breeding rates and productivity than we have now with ARs.

So can anyone tell us how a more natural condition helps the herd or improves hunting.