Listen BlueBayou, even if spikes take longer to catch up, it wouldn't matter. They DO catch up and are not genetically inferior per your admittance. Once they are in the supply chain, they will be big bucks someday. I actually think it would be good to have an extra year or two added to our age structure so it matters not to me. Spikes are late born and usually to a doe fawn.They are developmentally challenged because of nutrition during gestation and lactation and also less time to grow compared to others. It does not take a genius to see that.

No, I have consistently said spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development and there is no evidence that it is not due to being genetically inferior.

That is not true . Some are but a lot are not. If you look at the fawn breeding rates in 2G you will see very few fawns are bred and therefore would never account for the percentage of spikes in the herd. Once again facts and knowledge trump opinions and theories.

Are 2.5+ spikes inferior? Are there any inferior buck in the herd? Why do QDM manager agree with culling small older buck with scrap racks?

(The red ink was my editing)

Classic Bluejob BS

Dr Kroll's study conclusions absolutely said that genetics were not inferior in juvenile spikes.

QDM managers agree with culling smaller mature bucks. QDM managers do not encourage culling 2.5 bucks becasue 2.5 isn't even close to a mature buck. It may be as close as the majority of PA deer get but 2.5 is still a juvenile.

Just more Bluejob BS

It is obvious that there are only two kinds of bucks per BB2. 1.5's and 2.5's. He cannot fathom anything older than that for some unseen reason. Somebody should show him a 6.5 year old. He would be amazed.
What is really unbelieveable is that they started as young bucks.
Whodathunkit?

after 6 years i would think that you or your supporters can show ussome 6.5+ buck that has been harvested over the years. now if this program is working the numbers of these big mature bucks being shot should be easy to find and be a dime a dozen now. atleast 4 times as many now and with 10+ points and 175+ class bucks than previous years before the AR came into play. i will be waiting for the data from you all on this.

the only way to get these big bucks is get rid of hunters to let them grow. shoot off the deer,hunters quit and deer get bigger. but the pgc can't afford to do that and are in a jam now for money. they are not getting a 50$ license fee increase as they wanted. plan backfired and they will crumble.

Once again while accusing me of spreading BS it is actually you that is not telling the truth. Here is an actual quote from Kroll's study.



All that Kroll said is there is no genetic basis for culling spikes as 1.5 buck and I agree with that statement. But ARs doesn't just protect 1.5 spikes , it also protects 2.5+ spikes and other inferior non-AR legal buck. Kroll did not say all 1.5 spikes were genetically equal to 6 or 8 pts. and he had no explanation for the slow rate of antler development of 1.5 spikes. He also supports culing bucks at 3.5 which means he agrees that some buck are genetically inferior for antler development.

Now there is the cold hard truth with no name calling or insults. See if you can match that.

Why don't you provide a link to the data showing the percentage of 6.5 buck in the 2007 harvest. I provided the percentage of 2.5 and 3.5+ buck , now let's see you back up your position with facts.

I can't believe this is still going.....

Pennsylvania WILL NEVER produce the quality of bucks you see in the midwest. Isolated cases, sure, they happen every year where someone takes a big animal. It happened before and after AR was implemented.

PA has several things working against it. For one, we have too many hunters. Many of these hunters are "grocery shopping" when they hit the woods and as long as that buck is legal, they'll shoot it. Secondly, and this relates to the number of hunters, is that these bucks, even with AR, are not reaching the age needed. Some do, but a lot of them don't get past 2 1/2 years of age. Most importantly, in most places of this state, the food is not nearly as good as it is in the mid western states.

You give a buck age and quality food and you'll see them reach potential. PA is not suited in most cases to do this. We're mostly mountains where very little good feed is available, especially during the winter months.

The property I hunt is a perfect example. It's intensively managed for bucks. We plant lots of plots, have quite a bit of ag ground for them to eat. We also don't shoot anything less than an 8pt. But we also have quite a bit of mountain ground too. We do see some big racks every year. Some in the 140-150 range. But no where near what they see in the mid west.

But bluebird, this nonsense of AR actually producing smaller bucks is ridiculous. How can it? If we save a few bucks every year to allow him to get a little older, he's bound to be a bit bigger the following year. Even if the mystical spike is just that, a deer that is inferior, you're still, on average going to see larger bucks.

If it is ridiculous ,would you please explain why it happened in Miss?

BTW, just so you understand my position here is what I am saying. The average 2.5 buck produced by a non-AR herd will be bigger than the average 2.5 produced by an AR herd. Both the Kroll study and the statewide results from Miss. confirm that position. Now can you produce anything to refute it.