Originally posted by jjas:
In the end, if herd reduction is having the designed effect, harvest numbers should lower and settle out. I know many hunters don't like it, but that's what is supposed to happen. Does that mean somewhere around 120,000 is the "new normal" as far as harvest totals goes? I don't know, but based on the last few seasons that's where the numbers are.
That doesn't mean there aren't areas that may have had too many deer taken (or in some cases, perceived to have had too many deer taken), but to expect the DNR to be able to "micro manage" the herd by sections of counties is unrealistic. IMO, that responsibility falls to the hunters.
Things that seemingly get lost in the endless arguments on forums such as these, are the effects that hunter numbers, hunter density, loss of habitat due to development, and today's farming practices have on deer numbers as well.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing the new harvest report and the breakdown of data it provides.
100% agree. All the bickering and nitpicking aside, this is the truth of it. DNR wanted the herd reduced, their plan worked and we see less deer. We as deer hunters may not like it, but to not understand that is like letting the air out of your tire then wondering why you have a flat. And in areas everyone is up in arms about seeing zero deer and saying something needs to change, it comes down to exactly what you laid out, not only is the DNR not going to micro manage areas (especially on only one or two year's data), but there are a lot of variables in each area that they don't have control over.
