This comparison of deer management and political liberty is as preposterous as it is ignorant. A man advocating for conservative management of a shared resource can only be right.

And why is it that the argument ALWAYS goes this way??---- Two landowners side by side.
Guy A is virtuous and enlightened, an "if it's brown it's down, no rules" kind of hunter, a loving saint who pets lambs and feeds starving children and is the only kind of hunter who TRULY enjoys the outdoors, he knows what's REALLY important about hunting.
Guy B is an evil trophy hunter, a miserable grump who robs the fun from hunting and stomps on kittens. He has been brainwashed by Stan Potts and needs therapy to return to the grass roots pursuit of tasty venison
(yes, the sarcasm is intended because that's how y'all freakin' act)

Guy A ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS accuses Guy B of being a Democrat, a hunting Nazi, who advocates for more restrictions, and tells him he's being authoritarian and selfish. Because CLEARLY Guy A doesn't in any way, whatsoever, ever at all, affect Guy B.
Those deer cross the boundaries all day and night, every day for the entire lives, and Guy A shoots any of them whenever he wants. But Guy B is the selfish one trying to ruin it for everybody? Give me a break. It truly is just like politics after all, the very ones who are actually a negative affector, accuse the other side doing it.