NRA weighs in on AR
#33
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

NO!!!!. What I am saying is high grading has nothing to do with a change in the gene pool. ARs result in high grading because they protect the buck that are inferior for the rate of antler development. the long term effect may have a negative effect on the gene pool ,but as yet that has not been proven conclusively.
#34

No. You're wrong, and its pathetic that you can feed the public your radical viewpoints and nothing is done to limit it. Good ol' freedom of speech. Note to everyone: if its brown, smells really bad, and came from a cow...its bull$hit.
AR's were backed by science, and they did what they were intended to do...protect 50% of the yearling buck population.
I'll put you in touch with the biologists who did the research leading to AR's, even though I'm sure you would be teaching them.
AR's were backed by science, and they did what they were intended to do...protect 50% of the yearling buck population.
I'll put you in touch with the biologists who did the research leading to AR's, even though I'm sure you would be teaching them.
#35

Then tell us Glew, what scientific benefit was realized by protecting 50% (actually a bit more than that) of yearling bucks?
Btw, improved odds of trophy success is NOT a scientific benefit, yet remains as the cornerstone of "questionable" deer management.
When you are willing to advise private QDM practicioners to eradicate their deer herds for the sake of the trees, and force them to accept single digit DD, then I'll stop calling you all a bunch of antler- greedy hypocrites

#36
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

I think the biological benefit of protecting yearling bucks is that it promotes a more balanced buck age structure with bucks reaching maturity. To me its logical to say that a herd comprised of mainly yearling bucks is not biologically favorable because it does not mimic the natural herd dynamics that persisted prior to selective harvest.
Last edited by bluebird2; 02-22-2010 at 07:29 PM.
#37

If you want to be credible all you have to do is provide the data that shows that harvesting 80% of our 1.5 buck for over 50 years has had a negative effect on genetics,breeding rates ,productivity or recruitment.You can't do it , so once again you are just blowing smoke
Sometimes we have to use a little logic and reasoning. I think its logical to say that a herd with a balanced age structure is more biologically favorable. Now blue, please tell me why I am wrong.
Last edited by glew22; 02-22-2010 at 07:40 PM.
#38

In other words, Glew, all you can do at this point is speculate that some negative aspect must have been realized by harvesting young bucks....unfortunately speculation does not equal fact. You also keep mentioning that you consider a buck that is 3.5 years or older a quality deer. It is really shameful that you would consider a deer "poor quality" because he hasn't reached his third birthday. I'm sure you don't apply that 3 year rule to harvest of antlerless deer, of which QDM typically supports very intensive harvest to "balance buck doe ratios"....though intensive HR in PA has not been proven to narrow the breeding window, which only serves to create more intense rut action, serving hunters, but not necessarily realizing any scientific benefits for the deer once again. And since you already stated that you define "quality" deer as a 3 1/2 or older buck, then you just reiterated that QDM is about trophy potential. I know you are quite fond of jumping in here and playing the expert, and I'm not challenging your resume, but it will take more than your professional opinions and speculation to win your case. Show us evidence of any scientific benefit realized through implentation of AR. Until your theories are substantiated with hard data, they are just as much speculation as any other opinion posted here. Which of course is as welcome as the next.
#40
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879

Well blue, you're right. But you already know you're right because the data your asking for dosen't exist. And I'm sorry that I wasn't there 30 yrs before I was born to set up the correct expeximents. However, if you wanna throw me millions of dollars I would be glad to do the reasearch and I'll start today. PS: just because the data dosen't exist, dosen't mean there weren't negative effects.
I think its logical to say that a herd with a balanced age structure is more biologically favorable. Now blue, please tell me why I am wrong.