Mhogan,

I don' t think Dr. Samuels is lying, but unfortunately, I think he may have just hurt his credibility, either that, or he has defined the success of antler restrictions so low, that a number of things could have accomplished this acclaimed " success" . I still stand by the presumption that it will take several years for this type of policy to show results anywhere, and up until his statement, so did every biologist I have ever heard speak about AR' s. Lets be real, a couple of days of really bad weather could have dropped the buck kill by 20 percent, and a few extra doe tags raise the antlerless kill. That would have nothing to do with antler restrictions. To me, it seems like he (Dr. Samuels) jumped a little too soon to claim success, and that makes it look like they either are trying to now, or will in the future, fudge the numbers to ' prove' the success. There was no need to for someone of his stature to come out and claim success when, preceding this statement by him, every biologist in the country acknowledged that it takes several seasons to see actual results with antler restrictions.

It diminished his standing, and exposed an effort that seems almost desperate to claim success in Pa for antler restrictions.

Like I said, a few days of bad weather could have achieved the same results (of reduced buck kill). His claim is just about a silly as those who claimed that the antler restrictions were working last season because they were already seeing bigger bucks----before it had even begun!

To say they had a positive start would have been one thing, to claim success, well, that was very premature. What happens this upcoming season when the buck kill approaches the 2001 numbers, as it most likely will? Then do we claim failure?

Like I posted somehwere else, his claim is like claiming victory in the first lap of a 500 lap race. Unless you' re Jeff Gordon, you can' t do that.