I feel that AR's can go either way in either hurting or helping the herd. One major factor that I think has a lot to do with how well an AR will work is the population of the deer herd at the time the AR takes effect. If there is a relatively low number of deer, and only younger, low quality bucks are being harvested, then an AR might make sense. However, in place of this, you cannot allow people to shoot does where they might normally shoot a small buck. Now instead of a bunch of small bucks being shot, all the does are going to be shot, and there will be nothing left to breed!! Both sides of the breeding have to be protected. If there are antler restrictions and a limited doe harvest, hunters will have to make a sacrafice for a year or two, until the bucks begin to grow antler size of any sort. In that time though, the deer herd should have some time to increase, and will balance out with time, and allow for the eventual harvest as more does. As for areas where deer herds are higher, I have no idea how it would work. I live in a state where the deer herd is averaged at about 1 deer per square mile. The current management plan of very few doe tags and a conservative buck harvest is working at keeping the herd balanced, but the habitat is in poor shape due to a 5 year drought. Due to this, the deer herd is steadily declining. The bucks that are harvested, do represent a wide range of age classes, so I doubt an AR would be any more effective in increasing the herd size. In a good number of areas, 50% or more of the bucks carry at least 4 pts per side.

In the end, I think it should come down to what each hunter feels like harvesting, unless the deer herd becomes so low that the state MUST instate an AR to increase the deer herd.