So much for the...."AR's don't make any difference to the herds health one little bit!"....theory!!

JC

But what you left out is that the older bucks are bucks that are inferior for the rate of antler development. Furthermore, ARs in PA did not produce any change in the breeding window and breeding rates decreased by 5%.

#1. On what basis did you determine that "inferior bucks" are the results of AR's??

#2. Where did you read that "AR's did not produce any change in the breeding window and breeding rates decreased by 5%."? More importantly...Assuming that was true, why should you have expected a positive expected rate of causation between AR's being implemented and increase breeding rates completely irrespective of all other population variables...Hint...You absolutely should not and that is the gapping whole your argument! (Stated more clearly....knowing PA had a huge decrease in total population at the same time AR's were implemented why do you presume that AR's are acting as an independent variable in breeding rates when in fact that is obviously not even remotely the case??)

JC

Inferior bucks are not the result of ARs, they are the bucks that are protected by ARs. After over 10 years of ARs in Miss. , the average rack sizes of 2.5+ buck decrease instead of increasing Dr. Kroll's research showed that spike bucks were inferior for the rate of antler development.

The data was posted in the 2007 AWR on the pGC website. Population variables should not effect breeding rates if an increase in the percentage of older buck in the herd was supposed to increase breeding rates and productivity. Breeding rates are based on the percentage of does that are bred , not on the number of does that are bred, so the size of the herd is irrelevant.

According to 2007 Pa game commission annual report:

2002----Embryos per adult doe--1.63-----adult doe bred 93%
2003---------------------------1.59--------------------93%
2004---------------------------1.53--------------------91%
2005---------------------------1.51--------------------92%
2006---------------------------1.54--------------------89%
2007---------------------------1.50--------------------88%

Exactly my point....

That is the size of the average 2.5yr old buck harvested and has nothing to do with the long term genetic potential of any of the bucks as a population, nor does it have to do with the size of the average buck being shot. Fact is the average size of all bucks being harvested improved dramatically.

Incorrect!!!...Dr. Kroll's concluded..""Studies repeatedly have shown that whitetail bucks do not reach maturity until four years of age, and by the time the bucks in our study had reached 41⁄2, there was no significant difference in any of the antler measurements, no matter what the buck started out with his first year. The antlers were just as wide, just as heavy and had just as many points. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in gross B&C score," he says. Many of the bucks that had been yearling spikes had grown 130-inch racks by age 41⁄2." "It appears from our data that the spikes and 3-pointers are genetically equal at birth to multi-point yearlings for antler growth potential," Dr. Kroll concludes. "

http://www.petersenshunting.com/cont...ng-spike-bucks

Obvioulsy a "rate" is a synonymous with "percentage"...However, that has nothing to do with whether or not an expected result is affected by any number of variables, (total population being just one of them). For example, you repeatedly qoute this 5% number and suggest it came from the state and it is proof AR's don't work....Since you seem to have all this data I asked you to post it...Please show us where the state has concluded that a 5% reduction in breeding rates has universally been caused across PA as a direct result of AR's having been implemented?....(Obviously you can't, because that is not something even a highly trained geneticists or state biologists would be foolish enough to proclaim based on such limited data and based on results with no variable controls whatsoever...In fact, I am certain that they have not even strongly hypothesize that there was a direct cause and effect relationship that has occured there...In reality, it is just your opinion that one resulted in the other simply becuause the two data points occured simultaneously.).

Finally, since you seem convinced that Ar's caused this problem and it is proof AR's are "bad"...I ask you, what does a decrease of 5% in the breeding rate have on average antler size of harvested bucks in state where there is a chronic overpopultion of whitetails and the states intended goal is population reduction?

JC

Thanks Cornelius,

Can you post the state biologists interpretation of the significance of this data? For example whether the above results were a statistically significantly change as well as the +/- rate of error for the study?

Finally, since it seems folks are holding this data out as the "smoking gun" that AR's don't work...someone please share the states response to this proof that AR's are a failure. After all if it so clear to an anti-AR'er on a chat board that the decrease seen in this data is a direct result of AR's then certainly the state wildlife biologists are perfectly aware of the significance of this data and surely they would have commented on these shockingly "bad" results from the misguided AR's....LOL

JC

You are living in never ,never land if you think the PGC will admit that ARs failed to produce the predicted results. They won't even release the average rack sizes of the 2.5+ buck harvested after ARs were implemented and they won't say if rack sizes increased or decreased as a result of ARs.

"Can you post the state biologists interpretation of the significance of this data? For example whether the above results were a statistically significantly change as well as the +/- rate of error for the study?"

No i cant Jc. We have been given no explanation by pgc. I think they would rather those things werent "dwelled upon." But wether one deems it a significant change or not, its the wrong direction. We were not told these measures would decrease. We were not told they would stay the same. Thanks to teh program they were supposed to INCREASE. We were told this in no uncertain terms by our Pa Game Commission before our deer program began. I dont think we need a biologist to confirm what we can very easily see on that chart, that did not happen.

BTW, Im not anti-ar. I have my own theories on how these changes came about due to how things were done here collectively, and dont blame ar myself. Others may disagree and are free to draw their own conclusions. I just thought Id provide the data that shows the declines spoken of, which are, indeed fact.

Also worth noting, this isnt supposed to be haphazardly thrown together unused data just thrown out there as an afterthought by pgc. They believe it accurate and give it much weight in our deer program.

Actuall the state did have a response to that data. It was even posted on this forum. The sampling emphasis of the pregnant does had shifted from the higher quality WMU's to a greater numerical emphasis on the lower quality WMU's. AR opponents like to ignore that fact.

Also, you are correct that Dr Krolls research directly disproves much of the Mississsippi data that AR opponents so love to cite.

It's not a cure all and it's not QDM but it will bump up the average age a bit and therefore average antler quality will improve. How much is a subjective thing but the vast majority of PA's hunters are happy with AR's. The accompanying herd reduction is the issue that most unhappy hunters raise although that vocal minority appears to be shrinking slowly but surely.
There will always be a few hardcore that will never be pleased but most PA hunters now see AR as a very positive thing.