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.