While there is certainly an aspect of accountability related to the DNRs role, it might be relevant to remember that their role is more directed at biological aspects first and then the social aspects thereafter. Is the Indiana deer herd in peril biologically, I don't think so. So, I think the DNR gets a thumbs up in regard to their primary role. In regard to influencing the trigger pull, not the DNRs role in my opinion, except through bag limits which they have managed reasonably well considering the annual harvest numbers are still pretty strong and general hunter dissatisfaction appears to still be low enough that there is no uprising by deer hunters.

It is not the DNRs job to manage social changes in how sportsmen wish to pursue deer and harvest deer. They do a good job of trying to maintain done sense of ethics and safety in the field but again, where is it stated that a government agency should establish ethics. Arguably this should be an outcome of sportsmen and the general publics will as long as it's done in a safe manner. The DNR manages the resource, not the hunter, and it just hasn't been shown that the resource is in trouble, in my opinion. Do I like many aspects of the deer herd situation, no. But pointing a finger at the DNR is largely wrong and incorrect. IF this deer herd ever becomes biologically threatened I believe the DNR will step up and save the deer herd because generally speaking, I don't think the deer hunters will.