I see the logic now. The proposal allows for the DNR Director to establish reduction zones by temporary order apparently whenever deemed necessary. This replaces the current situation where they are established in the code which can only be changed by rule, i.e. the legislature via the somewhat (necessarily) cumbersome.

That gives more flexibility to the DNR and allows the professionals to manage deer v. the politicians. I am all for that.

The argument that a longer reduction zones gun season will result in a higher harvest is a different matter.

I honestly don't believe it will change a thing since folks with access to urban (reduction) zones kill their desired number of deer regardless of season length.

But, DNR and the LRC believes it will so you are making their argument for them. To argue against a longer season by saying it will be more effective at reducing deer in reduction zones is not going to work. They're just going to say "That's the whole point."