Blue bird: Only you could believe that you answered this post with your post 3 posts ago.

Just what were you trying to say? I can't quite figure it out.

Harvesting the animal, whether using AR's or not eliminates any talk of natural selection. Get it?? It creates something that many folks see you as in some of your posts. An oxyMORON.

Thank you Bowtruck for your understanding.

Never said I was wanting to determine who could post or not - asked for a little consideration
from those dominating the NE forum.

Corny - your hot air will keep the Pa whoa is me threads sailing for a long time.

Steve

Obviously it is you that doesn't get it. I didn't say either type of harvest equaled natural selection. What I said was ARs represent the exact opposite of natural selection and a non-AR harvest is a random harvest, so neither one equals natural selection. However, AR targets the buck with the highest potential for antler development so there is a greater negative potential for adversely effecting the gene pool.

Oh. Asking for a little consideration... Is that what you call this whiney drivel and your other posts just like it??

"Could the Pa guys who have argued for 100's of threads and 1000's of repeated posts under who knows how many alter ego screen names, let the NY hunters have one thread to debate amongst themselves? You obviously can neither fix or agree on what Pa needs/doesn't need/wants or has done - how can you possibly hope to offer anything of value to NYer's?"


Stevey, I think you need to get this through your skull: You do not dictate who posts...Where they post....or what they post. So you can take your little bossy Napolean complex and shove it. You try that crap on other boards too, unsuccessfully. Btw, howd that attitude work for you and buddies over on Griz garys board? Seems he finally got tired of of the b.s. and put some of the biggest whiners in their place. I guess some never learn.

I found it interesting that the DEC report showed NY hunters raised the same issues for and against ARs as PA hunters. The big difference is that DEC told the truth about ARs while the PGC sold ARs to PA hunters based on lies.

Now Blue bird, I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible;

You state that the opposite of " a BETTER genetic make-up will occur ". That can only mean, at least to us in NY State, that you are saying a WORSE genetic make-up will occur. You know, opposite of BETTER. If AR's have that effect, as you say, then non- AR's HAVE to have at least that effect.

Unless, of course, in a non-ar region, hunters are allowing all breeding age buck to pass. Let's see, I'm hunting in a non-AR zone, and I have the choice of shooting that small 8pt, or that crotch horn next to him. Yup, your right, I'm Naturally selecting the crotch horn. LMAOAYDS.

You got any more of that $hit?, or is it " one dog, one bone "

It not as simple as you might like to think it is and the experts disagree with you. The big difference is ARs protect the smallest buck in each age class while a non-AR harvest make all antlered buck with at least 3" spike legal.

Here is what happened as a result of 12 years of ARs in Miss.

Simply commenting on your quotes that I listed two posts ago, quotes regarding natural selection. Those quotes are clearly wrong. As far as the experts, the jury is still out on them.

P.S.: Just a little advice: One of the greatest deficiencies a man can have is the inability to admit he's wrong.