|
Alt flat out admitted that we wouldnt know all the long term effects till time showed us. He did talk about the possibilities for a buck who learned to survive one year being better able to survive past 2.5. The number of 3.5+ bucks has not changed as much as we all hoped and as much as Alt either believed or wanted us to believe. That does not translate to a claim that the average buck of any given age class would be bigger. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3456134)
Although you didn't realize it, you just admitted that Alt said our 2.5+ buck would be bigger than our pre-AR 2.5+ buck, in the long term. You also admitted it didn't work out as planned. The only possible way for us to have "larger buck than ever before" is if the 2.5+ buck in each age class were larger than the pre-AR buck.
I did no such thing. i said it was expected that more bucks would live to 3.5 and beyond. That did happen but increase in the number of 3.5 + buck did turn out to be less than expected. Let me explain your misunderstanding to you. There are three components to antler growth. Genetics, nutrition and age. Age is the factor where man can have the most dramatic and practical effect on a large scale. The "larger buck than ever before" was about an overall average older age. That has happened. Not bigger bucks within the age classes. That was not promised and has not happened. Now, where is that link???:busted: |
I did no such thing. i said it was expected that more bucks would live to 3.5 and beyond. That did happen but increase in the number of 3.5 + buck did turn out to be less than expected. The "larger buck than ever before" was about an overall average older age. That has happened. Not bigger bucks within the age classes. That was not promised and has not happened. Now, where is that link??? All you need now is a course in reading comprehension and surgery to remove your blinders. |
Originally Posted by bluebird2
(Post 3456198)
Wrong again, we have a higher percentage of 3.5+ buck in the herd than before ARs. But we always had 3.5+ buck in the herd and the ones produced by ARs aren't any bigger than before.
Wrong again. The "larger buck than ever before" was based on better genetics which ARs were suppose to produce as a result of dominant breeding and a better breeding ecology. I already provided the direct quote from "Getting the POint". All you need now is a course in reading comprehension and surgery to remove your blinders. Your response is simply ridiculous and speaks for itself. I didnt say we didnt have more 3.5 + bucks , simply that it wasnt as dramatic an increase as Alt implied The larger than ever before was about average age and you have produced nothing but the original quote along with your warped interperetation. What you need, my friend, is far more complex than simple reading comprehension........... |
The larger than ever before was about average age and you have produced nothing but the original quote along with your warped interperetation. |
"He did talk about the possibilities for a buck who learned to survive one year being better able to survive past 2.5." The number of 3.5+ bucks has not changed as much as we all hoped and as much as Alt either believed or wanted us to believe. |
lmao. Lets not sugar coat it and twist what was said. The joker said "more and bigger bucks". never said he didnt say that. Lmfaorotf!!! i simply said he also talked about the possibility of bucks who might be smart enough to live beyond 2.5 once they got a pass as juveniles. maybe you and the bird can get a group discount on a reading comprehension tutor! Lol |
With a lot less deer in the herd these days, isn't there less competition for food? Wouldn't that lead to better nutrition? And therefore, a 2.5 year old buck could be bigger than one that's living on an over-crowded rage with poor nutrition?
|
Originally Posted by BarnesX.308
(Post 3456543)
With a lot less deer in the herd these days, isn't there less competition for food? Wouldn't that lead to better nutrition? And therefore, a 2.5 year old buck could be bigger than one that's living on an over-crowded rage with poor nutrition?
Thats definitely a possibility in some spots but it would be hard to evaluate and prove. I would think that the difference would be minimal because our deer were not starving . They were relatively well fed then and are somewhat better fed now in most WMU's. I'm also wondering how accurate a study would be on a wild population. I would think it would have to measure results over time and would require a fairly big sample. |
Originally Posted by BarnesX.308
(Post 3456543)
With a lot less deer in the herd these days, isn't there less competition for food? Wouldn't that lead to better nutrition? And therefore, a 2.5 year old buck could be bigger than one that's living on an over-crowded rage with poor nutrition?
here is what the KQDC had to say about increased nutrition due to decreased DD. 61 Figurere 42. Mean antler beam diameter of bucks harvested on the KQDC area. Thus, the three-point restriction initiated in 2002, DMAP regulations instituted in 2003, and the decline in deer abundance beginning in 2004 were associated with significant increases in deer weight and antler characteristics 2005-2008. However deer density did not decline further after 2006 and landowners were not able to significantly increase amount of forage production by harvesting trees through thinning, shelterwood, or final harvests and leaving such sites unfenced during 2005-2008, there was no nutritional basis for continued improvement in deer body weight or antler characteristics. Depressing density below the low point of 11.6 deer per square mile in 2006 may not be possible, given the reduced number of hunters and resurgent hunter attitude of not harvesting antlerless deer. Thus, improving deer herd health will have to rely more upon creating more quality forage than by continuously reducing herd density. Historically, deer forage was created by timber harvest to supply the construction, veneer, and furniture markets with wood products. Given the depressed residential and commercial construction markets of today, and currently low prices of sawtimber, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient incentives for forest landowners to harvest increasing amounts of sawtimber in the near future. However, the recent increase in the demand for, and price of, pulpwood, may represent an opportunity for forest landowners to create more forage for deer – by creating openings in the midstory and overstory with pulpwood harvests and timber stand improvement cuttings. Such cuttings will increase the quality and quantity of deer forage provided, and making larger (>20 acres) rather than smaller (<10 acres) treatment areas will do a better job of spreading deer foraging and impact over larger areas and reducing impact. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.