Dr. D.,
But, the one thing that very few people have mentioned is....the biological effects that a season change may cause. I feel that we should be doing two things: (1) Making decisions based on data, and (2) Considering the biological, social, economic, etc. implications for whatever change is proposed. In my opinion, number 2 doesn't seem to be getting much attention.
First: seasons are currently being set for all kinds of reasons other than those defined by law. For instance, what are the biological effects of killing a deer with a gun as opposed to killing a deer with a bow? If there is no biological difference, is there a valid reason to set seasons according to the method used?
Second: biology is a combination of zoology and botany. If the state has a duty to regulate consumption of our zoological resources using scientific data to determine what is best for the animals, does it have a duty as well to use biological data to determine what is best for our native plant resources? Should the harvest of our natural timber resources on privately owned property be regulated according to data that shows what's best for each particular species, or should the "if it's hardwood it's down" crowd be allowed to consume the resource as it desires?
The effects of political science are an integral part of the decision making process in regualting the consumption of our natural resources. It is not purely natural science. Property rights, fundamental rights, and now, I suppose, animal rights are all involved. Should we also include botanical rights since it's biology and not zoology we're discussing? Hmmm!!!
