Technically, I'd say the crash can certainly be handled solely by doe permits without any necessity to address season lengths. Of course, hunters would/will freak out. And, I agree there is the issue of the revenue stream. But, quality won't address the revenue stream adequately unless you leave the permits reasonably high and hope that season length can limit opportunities to pull the trigger. Now, on the other hand, to address the revenue stream via quality, an argument could be made by a "businessman" that if quality is to be a key goal of the future, then the cost of a "quality deer", or a buck tag, (assuming some would suggest that a buck is viewed by many as more important to shoot then a doe) should go up dramatically to increase the dollar value of a tag sold. So, if I were the folks that have to supposedly find a way to satisfy a broad range of constituents, I'd ask hunters the following:

1. Would you rather have shorter season lengths (all seasons) or have drastically reduced doe permits in certain counties.
2. Are you willing to have a different price structure for a buck tag vs a doe tag.

Depending on how the hunters would respond to the above, I'd then pursue an approach that addresses hunters concerns, ag concerns, insurance company concerns, non hunter concerns and legislators concerns and yes lastly (but dealt with first and foremost) revenue concerns. I would also though revisit the mission of the DNR as it related to deer management to assure that I have a mission statement that is clearly defined and understood by all constituents, realizing that there is no way to satisfy everybody.

And Brew, Illinois has significant issues between resident hunters and non resident hunters and outfitters. I'd suggest the Illinois DNR might have a bigger can of worms they are dealing with then Indiana.