bowtruck

bb thought you didnt stoop to low life tactics atleast thats what you said
anyways since your not debaiting topic i might as go do something useful

bluebird2

i said I didn't have to stoop to such low life tactics to defend my positions on the issues. in my last post i wasn't defending my positions i was simply putting you in your place at the bottom of the feeding chain along with BTB.

BTBowhunter

and on and on and on he goes..........

bowtruck

givin the 2 to choose from i would rather stand beside btb than you
at either end of the feeding chain

bluebird2

And as usual you contribute nothing of value!!!

tsoc

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!

bluebird2

The genetic inferiority position does not discount the contribution of the female. When inferior bucks breed a significant percentage of the does they sire both female and male fawns and therefore negatively influence the genetics of both males and females..

There is no study that proves spikes are not inferior. Krolll's study confirms the fact that spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development and it is not due to being late born. If it was that simple they would catch up as 2.5 buck , but they don't It takes two more years and that is not due to being born a month or two later than average. Kroll could not explain why spikes were inferior for the rate of antler development,which means he was dodging the issue of genetic inferiority.

WCO R.W.J

Why are wekilling another thread with this B.S. The was about fisher reintroduction and a chance for education. But as always, its all about the deer.

bluebird2

This quote is from the original post that started the thread.


That opened the discussion to subjects related to deer management since we reduced the herd to insure adequate regeneration of commercially valuable trees.

WCO R.W.J

I know your passionate about deer management and what you believe to be true, even kind of admire your tenacity in the face of strong opposition, I just hate every post turning into ar/hr/hs