BTBowhunter (1/22/03):
BT, I wanted to pick this up for a minute too, because it underscores one of the main reasons I oppose Pa state-wide mandatory antler restrictions. I don' t know how I missed it the first time because politics is one of my passions.

To begin with, I left the thread because Sika (and you, by extension through your comments) were acting like liberals and refusing to acknowledge the facts when presented with them, there was no sense in continuing. None of you have put forth any facts to support your claims here, and in fact, we know that antler restrictions have not been proven to be a sound management theory, and there are no published studies to prove the claim they are. At least, according to Charles Alsheimer and D & DH , as of June of 2003. The first thing we all have to come to grips with is that these are just theories. Personally, I think they are a good idea, I am selective in what I shoot, and am on a lease out of state that has very strict requirements.

However, that being said, in the blending of hunting, wildlife management and politics that you' ve cited here, QDM and AR' s are, by definition, very liberal theories (if you don' t know the definition of Liberals and Conservatives, look it up). And your' e arguments for them (AR' s) fall in line with the Liberal Philosophies of gun control and anti-hunting: that being the removal of freedoms.

One of the most compelling arguments against gun control is simply--no one is telling those opposed to owning guns they have to own one, so what gives them the right to tell the rest of us we can' t own a gun?Same goes for hunting--no one is forcing animal rights activists to hunt, so who are they to force us to stop?

They do it because they see the rest of us from above, they look down and say, we elitists know a better way and you less than knowledgable peons should abide by what we know is right. It stems from a point of view in which they (Liberals) feel they are superior, and they know what is best for us, and the hell with freedom of choice, they know just how we should live.

Antler restrictions are no different. No one is telling you or I BT (or any other big buck hunter), that we have to shoot a spike or forkhorn. So who made us God, what compells us to think we should be able to tell everyone else in Pa they have to adopt out hunting selectivity? What gives us the right to force our trophy hunting mentality onto the rest of the hunters in Pa?

The answer is nothing gives us that right. It' s well known that these policies are just theories. As for the health of the herd issue, well, that is easily dismissed, and here is how. Pa implemented these restrictions statewide. Yet we know that the health of the herd is not in bad shape statewide. There are no doubt area' s that need some help, and forests have been negatively impacted by excessive deer numbers. So what is wrong with targeting these experimental policies to those areas, and leaving other areas for hunters who wish to have a choice?

If it really was for the ' health of the herd' , it would have been targeted to where the herd is unhealthy, not to healthy herds. The fact that it wasn' t tells me one of two things. Either the State did not yet have the data to establish where this should be done, so they just made it statewide, or it' s not really for the " health of the herd" . If the state did not have the data, then they were not ready to undertake these initatives to begin with. If they do have the data that identifies the areas where the herd is unhealthy, but still didn' t apply these regs to only the unhealthy areas, then what is the reason for it being a statewide mandate?

That is what brings me back to the Liberal philosphy, and the fact that this is being done by a segment who wants to remove the freedoms of some hunters, to satisfy the trophy aspirations of others. Lets be honest about it, it is not now, and never was, " for the health of the herd" , at least not statewide.