It’s not uncommon for members of the “mainstream” media to portray hunters and hunting inaccurately, largely because they don’t understand what hunting is all about.

The hosts of a Chicago sports talk radio show took that misunderstanding to a bizarre level yesterday, questioning how Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle can be both a dog lover and hunter. The debate centered on Buehrle’s hunting background and his criticism of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s dog fighting past.

It has been publicized recently that Buehrle and his wife have provided care for abused dogs, and in an interview on MLB.com about that work, Buehrle got onto the topic of Vick’s dog fighting crimes. Said Buehrle, “There were times where we [Buehrle and his wife] watched the game and I know it’s bad to say, but there were times where we hope [Vick] gets hurt. Everything you’ve done to these dogs, something bad needs to happen to these guys.”

Based on that comment, Tom Waddle and Marc Silverman of Chicago’s Waddle & Silvy morning show began to debate if a comparison could be made between hunting and animal abuse.

“I would ask this question only to see what your response is to something we have talked about,” Waddle said. “And I know there is a common sense difference between the two, but Mark also spends a lot of time in a deer stand, doesn’t he?”

“He does. That came up. Is that wrong to say? Is that apples and oranges?” Silverman responded. “Domesticated animals that we use as pets, compared to hunting, which is legal? You’re talking animal rights. … I don’t know what’s right or what’s wrong there. It’s an interesting point. You would have thought of what Mark Buehrle said about Michael Vick, then what about someone who would say, ‘But you’re in a deer stand with a gun shooting animals.’ I don’t know. I don’t want to make it too political, but I thought it was very interesting.”

The pair did not go so far as to directly equate hunting with killing dogs, but to even debate if a comparison could be drawn between the two demonstrates, at the very least, an unsettling view of hunting. It’s also a slap in the face of the hunters who listen to the Waddle & Silvy show, and those hunters who were listening didn’t take the debate lightly. They flooded the show with what Waddle and Silverman characterized as “emotional” reaction to the discussion. Both Waddle and Silverman later tried to downplay their earlier comments, emphasizing that hunting is a legal activity.

One of those hunters who was listening was NRA Endowment Member Kurt Frieders. Below is Kurt’s e-mail to us with more details about the show’s on-air debate, and his opinions on the issue. To hear the discussion for yourself, visit http://espn.go.com/chicago/radio/archive?id=3095454 and click on the Waddle & Silvy archived podcast for Feb. 10. The Buehrle discussion starts about an hour and 10 minutes in.

Dear Hunters Rights,

I just wanted to make you aware of a radio discussion I heard yesterday on WMVP ESPN Radio AM 1000 (Chicago). It was on the Waddle and Silvy morning show. Tom Waddle is a former Chicago Bear, and Marc Silverman is your typical ESPN talking head that never played sports. I usually tune in to them for five or ten minutes a day when I am in the car. Yesterday they broached the topic of Chicago White Sox pitcher Mark Buehrle rescuing a dog and paying for it’s many surgeries. Buehrle had recently come out and said that as a dog lover, he actually was wishing for Mike Vick to get hurt playing football. People can take that however they want, and that is not something I’m concerned with. What I am concerned about is where the discussion went from there. They openly questioned how Buehrle (and believe me as a lifelong Cubs fan I never thought I would be defending a member of the White Sox) could be both a dog lover and a known hunter. They spoke about how hypocritical it was for him to rescue dogs, and kill deer. They both admitted to not being hunters, and having absolutely no understanding of it (no kidding). It greatly bothers me that they compared hunting to a felony. At that time they slandered all hunters. As an NRA Endowment member I felt obligated to make you aware of this. It sounds to me like they would be perfect candidates for the enemies of freedom section in the NRA magazine. I was unable to get through to their show to straighten them out. However, I did e-mail back and forth with them several times. The person emailing me claimed to be co-host Marc Silverman (my guess is it was some pimple-faced intern). Being a pompous member of the media, he of course did not back down from [his] statement. He even pretty much confirmed that he thought hunting should be a felony. … I just thought this is something that would interest you.

Thank you and here’s to hunting!

Kurt Frieders, Illinois

The hosts kind of danced around the topic, but what do you make of their comments? Do you think their statements show a lack of understanding about hunting, or a real anti-hunting bias?

At its just-completed January meeting, the Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners gave preliminary approval to a rule change that would reduce the number of antler points required for a legal buck from four points to three in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2D.

What the change does is it eliminates brow tines from consideration as a point, meaning hunters now only have to identify “three up” on the main bean, and brow tines no longer come into the equation.

What this move doesn’t do is bring Western Pennsylvania in line with the rest of the state, which also has a three-to-a-side antler restriction. In all other WMUs a hunter can take a buck with three points on one side, brow tines included. But in WMUs 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 2D, hunters can now kill a buck with three points on the main antler beam without having to worry about identifying brow tines.

Currently, a hunter must positively identify four antler points on one side of the rack for a buck to be legal in these five WMUs, and brow tines count towards the four-point requirement.

The board will vote on this change at its next meeting April 12.

The Game Commission says the amendment will make it easier for hunters to determine the legal status of an antlered deer. Personally, as a Pennsylvania native and lifelong unit 2A hunter, I support this change and think it is a fair compromise for all hunters—and have said as much on this website before.

For some background, when the Game Commission instituted antler restrictions in 2002, agency officials said they wanted to enhance the state’s breeding stock by improving the buck-to-doe ratio, which means they wanted to increase the number and size of bucks in the herd. In a nutshell, they wanted to kill fewer antlered deer and allow more bucks to live beyond their first year. Antler restrictions were the key to that plan. (Though they likely won’t admit it, agency officials also saw antler restrictions as a means to reduce the overall deer population. By making it more difficult—and less likely—for a hunter to fill his or her buck tag, the commission hoped hunters would turn to antlerless deer to fill their freezers, and they have.)

When they went into effect, antler restrictions were designed to protect one-half of Pennsylvania’s yearling bucks. Commission biologists decided that a three-point-to-one-side restriction would accomplish that goal in the majority of the state. However, according to the commission, a three-point restriction would protect less than one-third of yearling bucks in the suburban woodlots and farmland of Western Pennsylvania, while a four-point restriction would protect half.

Love them or hate them, whitetail hunters have lived by these rules for the past nine seasons.

Much of the disdain for the rules has centered on the difficulty hunters have faced when attempting to count points on fast-moving whitetails—especially brow tines. To its credit, the Game Commission listened and studied the issue. Now, the four-point requirement and the need to determine if a buck has brow tines are about to become history.

“The idea of changing antler restrictions in the four-point area began a year ago when Game Commissioner Robert Schlemmer and I were hearing from many sportsmen about the difficulty of seeing brow tines,” said Game Commissioner Ralph Martone. “Recently, when Cal DuBrock, bureau director for Wildlife Management, reported on research showing that such a change would affect only a small percentage of antlered deer, Commissioner Schlemmer and I asked the Executive Director to prepare language eliminating the need to identify brow tines in the four-point areas for inclusion in the agenda for January’s board meeting.”

If the research cited by DuBrock is correct, and the change will only impact a small percentage of antlered deer, then it seems as if the new rule is a good compromise between those hunters who want to do away with antler restrictions entirely, and those who support them. The commission can still realize the goals it wanted to achieve through antler restrictions, but this change will allow them to do so without unnecessarily burdening hunters in the western WMUs.

What do you think? Are you happy with the Game Commission’s plan to do away with the four-point restriction in Western Pennsylvania in favor of a “three up” rule?