Again, I think any of us who were put in the role of the DNR folks would have a really hard time dealing with the situation. Can you imagine having to stand in front of "bosses" that have their own viewpoint and be in a position of recommending something that is in no way going to make hunters in general happy because as we all know, almost no hunters agree on anything. I mean seriously, they in essence are there to serve the "people", full well knowing that no matter what they say, propose or implement, they are going to be hammered by some vocal group of hunters. If most of us on here were in the DNR position we'd probably be telling us to go to heck. Then you add the necessity of trying to figure out how to financially fund that agency with a possible decline in deer license collections. Again, sportsmen want more from the DNR but that can't happen if there is significant reduction in revenue. That's why I look at them and suggest that all things considered, they're doing a pretty darn good job even if I don't like things they way they are.

And Joe makes a really good point that hasn't gotten much attention. It's not going to be easy for the DNR to take anything away. If they reduce anything, there will be an outcry that is unbelievable by hunters, in my opinion. Most want more without giving up anything. And it is going to be a long journey to bring back deer numbers, if they are ever brought back to the highs of years past.