I
I think the landowner tag should count against one of the statewide tags. That way the landowners can’t say they don’t get their cheaper tag.I agree, nobody needs more than 2 bucks. If we were to lobby for a 2 buck limit, what tag would you like to see or suggest be eliminated? There were only 215 +/- hunters that used 3 tags on bucks last year. That is less than 1/2% of the total bucks harvested. Is eliminating a tag really going to affect much? Maybe make it a 2 deer limit and address two fronts, bucks & population at the same time.
Going after the LO tag isn’t going to go over well. You saw that when the ISC tried to get the acreage limit through earlier this year. A 2 buck limit across the board with LO’s still getting their discounted tag would probably get little resistance. I honestly don’t know a good solution when going after tags.
Population is the first thing that needs addressed and while the DNR is trying, they need to cut back on doe tags in more areas. Even then, with the way they are in “pockets” due to lack of habitat, locked up ground, etc…, it’s going to take more. Updating their survey procedures would help with identifying those areas I’d think. You can’t just drive down the same roads every year and expect it to be accurate. Too much change in environment isn’t taken into account.
As for how many deer a family needs, who are we to judge. With the economy and beef prices, I’m sure an extra 100lbs of burger in the freezer could help quite a few. For the ones that can’t hunt their own, the Hush program also helps a lot of people.
I think we need to decide whether the bigger issue is a lack of deer or a lack of wall hangars. It seems like a lot of the frustration is fewer “wall hangars”. Addressing the lack of deer itself will solve that. My first tags were “buck” only, maybe more areas need to go back to that. It obviously got us to a great point at one time.


