BTBowhunter

As far as I know this isn't on the web yet but Dr James Kroll (Dr Deer) and the whitetail Institute have an article on page 105 in the most recent issue of North American Whitetail that points out all the flaws in the study out of Mississippi By Dr Demarious claiming that AR actually has a negative effect on antler quality.

It's worth picking up a copy for anyone on either side of this issue. It provides a lot of information backing up our current AR/HR policies by citing actual results in other states.The Article does mention that a spread restriction is a bit more effective than a point count but other than that, it shows how AR combined with proper doe management helps increase breeding age, herd health etc etc (all the thing Gary Alt said would happen). The article is way to long for me to type in here, and, as I said, it doesnt seem to be on the web yet.

bluebird2

How could there be a flaw in the Miss. study when it was based actual rack sizes that decreased across all soil types in Miss. Furthermore, there is no logical reason why harvesting the best buck in each age class wouldn't produce bucks in the next age class that ,on average , wouldn't b smaller than in a non-AR herd.

BTW, Dr. Kroll's theory on protecting 1.5 spikes does not apply to PA since it is based on the assumption that the 1.5 spike will live to become a 4.5 buck. The vast majority of our 1.5 buck do not survive to become 4.5 buck,so our average 1.5 spike buck is still inferior to our 1.5 6 pt. for the rate of antler development.

BTBowhunter

Maybe you should read before you argue. Of course, you'll only read the parts you want anyway.

The Mississippi AR's didnt work because the doe kill wasn't adequate

At leastREAD before you try to argue with the findings of theforemost deer biologist in the world

bluebird2

I read enough of Dr. Kroll's work to know he has a bias, just like many other deer experts. And if he claimed rack sizes decreased in Miss. after ARs were implemented because the doe kill wasn't adequate, that proves he's biased. Even if the doe kill wasn't what the experts wanted or expected, that would not cause the average rack size to decrease,even if it did prevent rack sizes from increasing.

White-tail-deer

Reading it would make too much sense!! LOL!!

BTBowhunter

Yup, why bother to even read. Dr Kroll is biased, of course we all know that just about every wildlife biologist that works with whitetails is biased while our resident "expert" is completely impartial and always right.

Tell us all again Dr Bluebird about your credentials and expertise in the field that makes you SOO much smarter than Dr Kroll, Dr Samuel, Dr Rosenberry, and of course Dr Alt.............

bluebird2

I never claimed to be smarter than any of those Doctors. That is simply your opinion. I agree with Dr. Rosenberry and Dr. Demarias on many issues and I agree with Dr. Kroll that the average 1,5 buck will equal the average 1.5 6 or 8 at 4.5 year. Apparently Dr. Kroll disagrees with Dr, Demarias and Dr. Rosenberry disagreed with Dr. Alt. Just like you and Whitetail disagree with me.

Now i would appreciate it if you would explain how not harvesting enough doe in Miss. was responsible for the decrease in the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck in Miss. Miss. had too many does before Ars were implemented and they had too many doe after Ars were implemented ,so how did having too many doe cause the decrease in rack sizes and why didn't ARs in PA produce many new record book buck during the latest scoring session?

madvilledoc

In Dr. Kroll's own words (excerpt taken from the article appearing in North American Whitetail):

[blockquote]"However, since the Demarais study looked at the effects of imposing a point limitation, the concern seemed to be that this allowed “inferior” yearling bucks with spike antlers to reproduce. Of course, it was assumed that spiked yearlings are genetically inferior, but this premise has not been proved. To the contrary, our recently published report in The Journal of Wildlife Management[/i] showed no predictability between a buck’s first set of antlers and what he will have at maturity.

Other Considerations[/b]

"Furthermore, size limits should always be tied to adequate doe harvest, as mentioned. Without population control, no size limit, irrespective of strategy, will ever[/i] be successful! My experience has shown that without at least a 20 percent recruitment rate, absolute protection of yearling bucks will not mathematically lead to significant increases in mature bucks. Remember, recruitment is the percentage of fawns that reach 1 year of age. Recruitment is tied to population density.

In the Mississippi study, the harvest rate reported for the wildlife management areas was only 2.3 does per 1,000 acres. (More does than that die normally from accidents each year!) Mississippi has traditionally carried extremely high densities, and I’d be very surprised if the densities had not increased during the 10-year period of the study (1991-2001). The Mississippi study also concluded that a “points limitation” is only a “stop-gap” measure – one used not although something else may prove to work better. But what, exactly, is that?”
[/blockquote]

After reading the entire article, I'm not seeing much bias here. Just one professional pointing out "problems" with a particular study.

White-tail-deer

No Bluebird I think you are the one on here demanding things! BT simply suggested an article as an interesting read from another point of view and as usual you start attacking and demanding. You didn't even read the article before you started this. You do this again and again, over and over and it gets old! You are doom and gloom my friend and you will never change!!

bluebird2

Thanks for providing the true context of the article. But what i find to be amazing is that Dr. kroll doesn't understand that high grading has nothing to do with genetics in it's initial phase
In Pa HR plus ARs resulted in lower breeding rates and lower productivity. there is no data from Miss.that showed breeding rates or productivity decreased after ARs were implemented.