Dr. D.,

Your recommendations for setting seasons and limits reflect a tendency to consider the biological benefit of animals over the liberty of hunters. That was the philosophy that was used to reduce the male deer limit by 98% with an added antler configuration restriction. It was not done to preserve the liberty of hunters.

Here are some excerpts of "animal bill of rights" that appear to me to reflect a similar philosophy that the "rights" of animals should be protected by the state:

Quote:
The Right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and self-sustaining species population.

The Right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.
From the Animal Bill of Rights of the Animal Legal Defense Fund

Quote:
Bill of Rights for Animals
1. All animals are born with an equal claim on life and the same rights to existence.

2. All animals are entitled to respect. Humanity as an animal species shall not arrogate to itself the right to exterminate or exploit other species. It is humanity's duty to use its knowledge for the welfare of animals. All animals have the right to the attention, care, and protection of humanity.

9. Any act involving the wanton killing of the animals is biocide, that is, a crime against life.

10. Any act involving the mass killing of wild animals is genocide, that is, a crime against the species. Pollution or destruction of the natural environment leads to genocide


From the website of the Animal Liberation Front

When hunters are restricted in their liberty using arguments that the biological needs of certain species of animals is a superior concern that the state needs to protect, it resembles the assumption that game animals have rights. If that is accepted, then the next step is to consider the equality of the various game animal species in regard to those rights... i.e. - do hogs and coyotes have the same rights as deer??