Proposal Debates

[dbltree]

I thought I would stir up a little dust and hopefully draw everyone to this forum. I'd like to get everyone used to the idea of checking this forum and using it for legislative debate. Hopefully ALL deer hunters will understand the importance of the IBA and maybe even join...bowhunter or not.

I'm re-posting Willies comments from last fall...after being in the meeting and hearing Mr. Little's comments...some of these thoughts can be revisited an debated here.

FROM WJS:
Hi to all!

I have been asked to come up with options for next year if this year's regulations do not produced the desired results. The goal is to reduce deer numbers by 25% from a year ago. We are probably ok in the northern 1/2 of the state but may need more does killed in the southern and northeastern part of the state. Here is a list of options that have been discussed along with some pros and cons.

I would like to solicit your input about these options and any others you might have.

Thanks you for your time.

wjs


Potential options to increase the deer kill.

1. Lower price of antlerless licenses.

Adv: We would probably sell more antlerless licenses if the first license cost less.
Disadv: Potential loss of revenue. Doesn't target counties where more deer need to be taken.

<font color="blue">Mr. Little noted that there is basically no way that they will lower tag prices...end of discussion </font>

2. Change bag limit to 1 either sex deer and one antlerless deer.

Adv: Giving all hunters 2 licenses when the purchase an either sex tag allows all hunters to kill a doe and still hunt for a buck.
Disadv: Loss of revenue. Doesn't target counties where more deer need to be taken.

<font color="blue">Again...the loss of revenue thing negates this possible </font>

3. Require hunters to shoot an antlerless deer before they can shoot an antlered deer.

Adv: Should increase the number of does killed.
Disadv: Extremely unpopular with hunters. Difficult/impossible to actually enforce. If only done in some counties it may push hunters away from these counties.

<font color="blue">I like this idea but Mr Little said it would require check stations which the legislature won't go along with...so it ain't gonna happen </font>

4. Make opening day of first shotgun season antlerless only.

Adv: Should increase number of does killed.
Disadv: Unpopular with hunters. Enforcement problems but not as bad as for #3. If only done in some counties it may push hunters away from these counties.

<font color="red">I really like this idea the best of all...it costs nothing and the idea that hunters wouldn't hunt any certain area is almost laughable! There is no access in Southern Iowa anymore. So if someone has a place to hunt they will darn sure be back...no matter what. I think the bulk of the hunting is done by landowners and local residents. The lions share of the deer killed for the entire year, are killed opening weekend of shotgun season...and 85% on opening day are small bucks...a rule change such as this, while not flawless is a great option (IMO...that's why we call it "debate"

) </font>

5. Require hunters to kill a doe in previous year to be eligible for an either sex license in current year.

Adv: Forces hunters to kill a doe if they want to hunt antlered deer. Would encourage hunters to register their kill.
Disadv: Unpopular with hunters. Have to keep track of what hunters kill from year to year.

<font color="blue">Since we will now be required to report our kills anyway, this does have possibles, but I'm not sure if it would have the mass affect hoped for

</font>

6. Open deer season on Sept 1 and let it run until Jan 31. Hunters can get 1 either sex tag and as many anlerless licenses as they want.

Adv: Might kill more deer but if not then it is because the hunters/landowners restricted the kill not the DNR.
Disadv: Hunters would probably kill fewer deer as they have a longer period and less incentive to kill their deer during any one season.

<font color="blue">This seems like a no brainer bad idea but I'm sure that the "anti-deer" lobby would love it. However in reality longer seasons generally mean people get "lazy"..." I can go hunting tomorrow...gonna watch the game today" attitude </font>

7. Offer additional county specific either sex tags (for late muzzleloader or bow season) to hunters who purchase an antlerless license for a county where the quota doesn’t fill. Could be used to encourage hunters go to those counties that don’t sell out their antlerless licenses.

Adv: Should get some hunters to come back out hunting. Could require hunters to kill the doe first before they can use the either sex license.
Disadv: Puts extra pressure on the buck segment which will lower the quality of the deer herd. If you use the earn a buck option have same problems with enforcement.

<font color="blue"> Since access is out of the question for the areas that have the worst deer problems...it will be impossible to get people to come here...if you give them free tags, what good is it if they can't gain access to hunt??

Mr. Little, the legislature, FB and ins. lobbies can't seem to get that thru thier heads. They are all living in the past! </font>

8. Give hunters a reward for killing an antlerless deer. For example, if you kill an antlerless deer this year, then next year your deer license costs $5 less.

Adv: Encourages hunters to kill does.
Disadv: Loss of revenue. Record keeping.

<font color="blue">Just can't see this one being worth the effort...the only ones that would gain would be the ones that already shoot does

</font>

9. Have a lottery for either sex licenses.

Adv: Would limit the number of bucks killed.
Disadv: Might reduce deer kill if hunters don’t participate.

<font color="red">Another possible that most of us would rather not see, but it certainly would make a difference...of course it should apply ONLY to shotgun hunters

</font>

So here's the thing...we can count on never ending effort by the farm and ins. lobbies to push for higher deer kills. We know that Mr. Little could care less about the quality of our deer herd...only the reduction of it. We know that there is little or no access in the areas with the worst deer problems. We know that because of tradition and simply not caring...most shotgun hunters are not making an effort to pass up bucks and take does. We know that the combination of all these factors is making it even more difficult if not impossible to control the deer herd (again...I'm aware that all areas don't have a problem)
We can either push for significant changes that will reverse the trend or continue to fight off new and different seasons that have no real affect.

If you live for opening day of shotgun season...then debate the issue here. Join the IBA, be willing to make your voice heard...otherwise the legislature will listen to those of us that do all the shoutin

 

[turkeyriver]

Pretty good summary on each point.Access to the doe hotspots is the biggest problem, not price or availability of tags. Revenue for the DNR is the other issue that constantly must be considered in each new idea brought up. I'm starting to think we have an impossible problem to solve.

 

[dbltree]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty good summary on each point.Access to the doe hotspots is the biggest problem, not price or availability of tags. Revenue for the DNR is the other issue that constantly must be considered in each new idea brought up. I'm starting to think we have an impossible problem to solve.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does seem impossible and why I expect a constant barrage of ideas between the DNR and legislature...and frankly I'm thinking we might come up with better ideas then they

There are only so many hunters, only so many serious hours spent afield....
When are the most deer killed?
How can we make the most efficient use of that time to change the kill to a larger percentage or completely antlerless?
Changing to different types of seasons just lets hunters take the same amount of deer only at a different time...it doesn't mean that they will take more deer.....

 

[Ghost]

Although it would be terribly unpopular with hunters,...I really, really like the idea of having the opening day of gun season "anterless only"!

 

[kbgibby]

Access seems to be the greatest barrier to taking higher numbers of does where it's needed most.

Out of state landowners are probably practicing at least some QDM, so the bigger problem (IMO)is with leased land. I think there needs to be greater regulation of outfitters who are leasing land. Have outfitters register and provide a listing of all land being leased. Hunters working with outfitters must purchase their licenses by providing the outfitter's registration number. The licenses are based on the acreage and doe problem for that particular area --- high # of does = small # of either sex licenses.

Outcome will be either the clients shoot does, or the outfitter quits leasing. So more does are taken or resident hunters regain access if the land's not leased.

I'd also stop depredation payments to any landowner who doesn't allow public access.

 

[dbltree]

[ QUOTE ]
I really, really like the idea of having the opening day of gun season "antlerless only"!

[/ QUOTE ]

Since 99.5% of the states hunters pay absolutley no attention to proposals or legislative changes...it seems it would be a moot point...if anyone liked it or not. They would read about it in the rules book, grumble a little and then go out and make a REAL difference in the quanity and quality of our deer herd.
I have to wonder...if enough people talked to thier legislators and the special interest lobbies...that such a change might not be easily made.
Would not the Farm and Insurance lobbies be delighted? The legislative arm would have made a cost free, real effort to appease the lobbies...and the DNR could say "hey...we told you guys to shoot more does".
The "right thing" is not always the most popular, but in this case, I suspect there is a lot more support then one might think....

 

[TimberPig]

[ QUOTE ]
Although it would be terribly unpopular with hunters,...I really, really like the idea of having the opening day of gun season "anterless only"!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd support that, but then again I dont shotgun hunt except for does anyway. If that ever did happen I believe it would be short lived because I think many folks would over react and way-lay every single doe they saw until they got their buck hunting back. I know thats the idea but I think a whole lot of those does would be left to rot in the timber. Still, I bet it would be effective.

 

[dbltree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although it would be terribly unpopular with hunters,...I really, really like the idea of having the opening day of gun season "anterless only"!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd support that, but then again I dont shotgun hunt except for does anyway. If that ever did happen I believe it would be short lived because I think many folks would over react and way-lay every single doe they saw until they got their buck hunting back. I know thats the idea but I think a whole lot of those does would be left to rot in the timber. Still, I bet it would be effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right TP...but if so many antlerless deer were taken that quotas could be lowered or removed and that "tool" as a means of serious herd reduction was no longer needed....then it would have worked perfectly

Obviously It wouldn't be used at all were there are no antlerless quotas. In the areas with the worst problems there is so much land tied up by hunter landowners (both NR and Res.) there is little if any shotgun hunting being done. In most of these cases there is very little if any attempts to control the deer herd. So this proposal would not likely force a massive kill of antlerless. It would just provide a highly efffective means of control where shotgun hunting is the primary souce of herd control. It would force hunters to do what education has not...take antlerless deer in much higher numbers and give a higher percentage of immature bucks a second chance

 

[TimberPig]

I cant argue with your logic and like I said I would support it despite my concerns. Heck, there is a fair amount of unexplained carcasses to be found in the woods already, couldnt change too much.
I like the idea a whole lot more than these Nov and rifle seasons anyway. I think it would be interesting to see how it affected the total buck/doe harvest during shotgun.

 

[dbltree]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant argue with your logic and like I said I would support it despite my concerns. Heck, there is a fair amount of unexplained carcasses to be found in the woods already, couldnt change too much.
I like the idea a whole lot more than these Nov and rifle seasons anyway. I think it would be interesting to see how it affected the total buck/doe harvest during shotgun.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was puzzled at first why the DNR didn't utilize this proposal already this year...since it is thier idea, but after the ICN meetings I could see that top brass are more interested in the income from each assorted "special" season they can add, rather then implementing a serious proposal that would actually have an impact on our deer herd...in several positive ways.
I do want to mention that my/our thoughts on any of these proposals are not the official views or stance of the IBA...it's merely debate on the subject. I hope to bring about a serious grassroots effort by like minded indviduals to contact legislators about introducing lesgislation to this effect.
I'm hoping for more thoughts from others on the subject first though. What I'm looking for is alternatives...in other words if you don't care for this proposal...offer a better one.
Keep in mind it must be
Mandatory
Cost nothing
nor reduce revenue...or it's out of the question.......
I have fully expected to be flame broiled over this subject but it has been quite the contrary. Many individuals who hunt with large groups have tried for some time to convince members to let immature bucks pass and take does...however it is human nature to be competitive..."you only shot a doe? well I shot 3 bucks...two 6's and an 8!!" This type of situation will never end unless all are on the same playing field...then the competition is to see how many does can be harvested rather then bucks. The reward and incentive is to reduce the herd in their county to where quotas are not needed (or at least to some manageable number per year)
Mr. Little freely admitted that current polcies are not working, that only a small number of hunters are taking any antlerless deer at all and that soon the legislaters will take the matter to hand and we can only guess what they will come up with.
If your like me and your tired of putting out fires every year...then maybe we need to start one of our own

I appreciate those of you have had the gumption to speak your mind on a sticky subject. I hope to come up with an actual proposal soon so any interested parties can...you know...copy n paste

 

[TimberPig]

I like that proposal the way it is, except that I might add that it apply to the first day of every gun/bow season just to keep things fair.

 

[150 Class]

I think many of these proposals are dead...for now. As for 1st day of any season being forced to take does only, I think it is a silly idea. A good portion of the state won't even have antlerless tags this year. Those people either stay home or use their statewide on antlerless deer. Another high portion of the state sells out of the antlerless tags each year and of the ones that do not sell out, many of them are close enough to selling out that forcing this issue accomplishes nothing. It just does nothing where needed which is areas that are blocked from access anyhow. Heck, you could give away the tags and make the whole year antlerless only and these areas still might have and ALLEGED population problem.

 

[dbltree]

They are dead as far as the DNR is concerned, but anything is possible if a rep or senator would sponser a bill.
This proposal would only affect those areas that have an antlerles quota and I'm thinking perhaps a min. of 500 before it would go into affect. It would provide a means of utilizing those hunters that DO have access to harvest more does then bucks...something that is not currently being done. We all know access is a huge and worseing problem that will never ever get better. This means our deer herd will continue to become more unmanageable by current policies. I'm fully aware that many areas have no problem and that others may have only a percieved problem. Large areas of the state however have thousands of antlerless tags per county...and we are constantly being beset with new "special" seasons because of this.
It's not a matter of IF we will have more changes...just a matter of when. I believe we as hunters have a better under standing of what might work then do our legislators...why not offer a working proposal rather then wait to see what surprise they will come up with?
I sure appreciate your thoughts on this 150...but if you don't think this idea will work...then what do you propose?

We're so used to adopting a "wait and see" attitude that only leaves us desperatly putting out fires...the thought never occurs that we might initate change ourselves......

TP...I like the way you think! Can't argue with your thoughts at all.

 

[cheryl19]

I know this is hardly a solution to the problem at hand, but it is one solution. I realize the state has made it mandatory for non residents to buy an anterless deer tag this year. Why not go one step further and at least make non residents harvest the antlerless deer before they can harvest a buck. I am a non resident, I am not looking to debate the license quota crap etc, I am just saying if non residents are going to be there, you might as well take advantage of them, make them harvest a doe. This will not only increase the doe harvest, but will in some cases actuallt decrease buck harvest. They did this in buffalo county wisconsin, I was at an outfitter 2 years ago guys came back everyday talking of bucks they had seen but were unable to harvest due to the fact they had not harvested a doe yet. I know this may be tough to regulate, at least the outfitters in Iowa will have to enforce or be threatened with fines and or suspension etc. This is just a thought

 

[dbltree]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not go one step further and at least make non residents harvest the antlerless deer before they can harvest a buck.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the principle for this idea would be excellent for both resident and NR's in areas with high antlerless quotas...however the DNR feels it would require check stations...which cost money...so it won't happen.
I am wondering why the electronic "ck station" that is going into effect this fall...wouldn't work? One would have to have the # they recieve from calling in their antlerless kill...on their any deer tag. I think it's a great idea with plenty of merit but I'm afraid since it would require even the slightest amount of "red tape" that it would be resisted....not sure on that one?
I do feel that if the first day of each season was antlerless only (in areas with tag quotas...) that NR hunters buying antlerless only tags and party hunting to take home a buck would find it at least slightly more difficult to circumvent the intention of the law.

On a seperate note...I find it somewhat interesting that while Willie offered up a wide range of possibles last fall...top brass ignored all of them in favor of their own "pet projects" that virtually no one wanted and will be largely ineffective on a large scale. One would be extremely naive to think that trend won't continue...

 

[TimberPig]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many of these proposals are dead...for now. As for 1st day of any season being forced to take does only, I think it is a silly idea. A good portion of the state won't even have antlerless tags this year. Those people either stay home or use their statewide on antlerless deer. Another high portion of the state sells out of the antlerless tags each year and of the ones that do not sell out, many of them are close enough to selling out that forcing this issue accomplishes nothing. It just does nothing where needed which is areas that are blocked from access anyhow. Heck, you could give away the tags and make the whole year antlerless only and these areas still might have and ALLEGED population problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree that the "problem" only applies to about 1/3rd of the the state and I think that is where this proposal should apply as well. Obviously it would be pointless to mandate it where there were no or few antlerless tags. But, in areas where their are a lot of unclaimed tags and high populations it only makes sense to make a change that effects the average guy. That "average" guy in my area hunts Sat/Sun shotgun and is done for the year. There isnt really an access problem as far as ownership or leasing in this area but most ground is controlled by tradition. So and so's group always hunts so and so's ground come hell or high water and thats that. Short of a mandate they arent going to change the way they hunt because they arent the 5% of us that care. The landowner might want less deer but he isnt going to upset anyone by requesting anything and may not even understand the biology of shooting does.
In the end I think problem areas will only be solved by mandates. The average guys who hunt for the "party" of it really couldnt care less what changes get made. The more liberalized the laws get the better for them, in the mean time the overall quality goes to crap for those of us who do care. Until the DNR gives out free doe tags to the masses in problem areas (which wont happen) nothing will change without mandates. I agree with dbltree that we might as well help pick a mandate that is the least damageing.
I dont like the idea of mandates at all, but I am sick and tired of the changes that are being made. To me this sounds like an idea that might pacify the complainers without ruining everthing we have.

 

[cheryl19]

the bottom line is this...people would rather shoot something with horns regardless of how small rather than shoot does. I am from New york, In fact I live in a bow only county. We can shoot something like 5-6 does if we want. Very very few people do. Guys here let 20 does walk by them and shoot a 1 year old. unless a state requires earn a buck, few hunters will spend the time to manage the population. This year i had the opportunity to be in Iowa opening day shotgun first season. I ran into a guy at the local caseys, he went on to tell me he shot a real nice buck and walked me out to his truck to show me. It was a small four pointer, he goes on to tell me how he and his friend shot at it four times before he killed. I looked at my friend and said, "Why would anyone kill a deer like that in a state where world records grow?" If you feel like killing something, might as well kill a doe. Again, without laws this is the way people are and will always be.

 

[dbltree]

I’ve never met Timberpig, he lives in another part of the state and we’ve never discussed this or any other proposal other then in this post. His post though, is almost word for word what how I feel, what I see happening and how might be the best way to deal with it.
Khbofa is from an entirely different state but the actions of the hunters there are basically the same. Human nature…it’s a difficult thing to deal with sometimes.

I’m sure by now many of you are bemused, perplexed or even PO’ed at all of this but at least hopefully many of you are becoming more aware. Things change…something that I’m not fond of, but change none the less is occurring and we must forget the way it used to be and learn to adapt and deal with the present and the future, or the future may become completely unacceptable to us.

Managing our deer herd and the states hunters is a complex situation. It varies across the state, county to county. My personal feeling is that if it were left entirely up to Mr. Suchy we might not be faced with some of the situations we are today. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Suchy and the complexity of his job. Mr. Little however, left no doubt that they only take Mr. Suchy’s proposals under consideration. Then self interest’s, politics and monetary problems quickly water down Willie’s best laid plans and we as sportsmen get whatever comes out…after the pot is dumped on our plate and like it or not we are expected to eat it!

Do we have too many deer? We seemed to have answered that question ourselves last fall when we encouraged each other to harvest as many antlerless deer as possible. Obviously the special interests will never be satisfied but it’s safe to say, based on the current tag quotas that a sizeable portion of the state is in need of a substantial antlerless harvest. I think it’s reasonable to believe that a good share of these areas will always have sizeable antlerless quotas. The fact that increasing amounts of land is changing from farmer owned to recreational owners will assure that the deer herd will become larger and more difficult to manage.

What does all this mean to us? Based on the past few years, it means increasing pressure by special interests and the media on the DNR and legislators to show that they are taking any and all steps possible to reduce the deer herd. It means that special seasons will not go away, it means that more will be introduced and mostly in the form of liberalized firearms seasons in October and November.

Why do we have a problem controlling our herd? Access is gone or going fast and that situation, however unfortunate, is not going to change. The deer are going to be largely where there is prime cover and that cover is fast changing hands from farmers to individuals who are certainly not going to allow droves of hunters as had been done in the past.

Hunter numbers are shrinking along with access but there are still hunters and hunting, it’s just changing and we need to adapt our policies to deal with these changes. A growing number of hunter landowners understand the basic importance of QDM tactics and work to control the deer on their property as they feel necessary. For the farmer owned land however it is still business as usual. The lion’s share of the deer harvested each year on this type of land is still in shotgun season largely by people who do not take deer hunting seriously and who feel intense competition to go to work Monday morning saying that they “got a buck”. It has been that way for years but now the situation is getting worse and who is asked to pay the price for “average Joe hunter’s” unwillingness to carry his share of the load?

On the other hand there is the type of people who take deer and deer hunting so seriously that they are willing to defend their rights by joining the IBA, listening to the hosts of IW when called upon to attend meetings or contact legislators and DNR officials. They listen when asked to harvest more antlerless and encourage others to do so. The make every effort to manage their land for quality whitetail hunting. They find it easy to not look twice at immature bucks and fill the freezer with does.
Most of you reading this fall into this category…and what is our reward for doing this…for doing exactly what the DNR has pleaded with the states hunters to do?

We are “rewarded” by having special seasons that none of us want during times of the season that reduce the quality and quantity of our hunt, while not substantially reducing the deer herd.
What is the penalty that “average Joe hunter” pays for not doing his part….absolutely nothing!! Why not? We wouldn’t want to offend the 120,000 hunters who pay absolutely no attention to deer hunting, the DNR, legislative issues or anything else until they buy their license, upon which they may grumble or not…and go out and shoot a truck full of yearling bucks. It’s unfortunate that this group of hunters is comprised almost solely of shotgun hunters but those are the hard cold facts.
There are a number of people on IW that are shotgun hunters, practice QDM, are IBA members and fully do their part…if only the other 119,950 would take a lesson from them…….

Who stands to lose the most from increasing NR license quotas which only aggravates the access problem? Not me…it’s the 120,000 “avg. Joe’s” that sit on their hands while you and I work furiously thru the IBA and IW to defend their hunting privileges. I say this because I know that many of you would prefer to avoid any situation that might appear to be “us versus them” but at some point I feel “you have to stand for something…or you’ll fall for anything”.
I feel, as do a growing number of other hunters, that Avg. Joe Hunter must start to carry his share of the load. It’s not for me to judge if a hunter takes a yearling 4 point or not…but he and his cohorts cannot continue to fill the local lockers with immature bucks, just because that has been tradition and doing little if nothing to control antlerless deer.
I can feel no remorse for the masses, if in areas with high antlerless quotas, they are forced to hunt does for one day of their season.
I am sick and tired of paying the price for their ignorance and I’m going to do what I can to change the current policy. I hope many of you will join me in this effort even if it’s quietly. I believe by contacting our legislators about this specific proposal that we can affect a change for the better, if not this year then next.

I’m still hoping for more thoughts and debate before I post an actual “proposal letter”. Ask yourself…what is going to change? Do you honestly think that our deer herd will just magically drop to acceptable levels?
Do you feel that if we do nothing…if we make no waves…that everything will just…be alright?
Based on the past few years I think you all know the answer to each of those questions. So if you don’t feel this proposal is the right answer or if it can be “tweaked” (surely it can…) for the better…please speak your mind.

 

[bjkpharmd]

Excellent post Dbltree. No reason not to have a voice in picking our poison. I really hate to see sound management practices and advice from the professionals like WJS ignored.

 

[dbltree]

I suggest that the proposal should read:


“That in any county with 500 or more antlerless permits available, the first (opening) day of each anydeer season shall be designated as antlerless only”

In the northern and central areas of the state, tag quotas are much smaller and this year many of those areas will have no quota. Special seasons for the most part do not affect those areas because of this. These areas have little cover and deer numbers can be quickly brought under control.
The eastern and southern areas of the state are a completely different story and I believe that our representatives will agree that current policies are not effective.

Knowledge is a key issue and in this case, the lack of it is the cause for many of the problems we keep facing.
Mr. Little brought chuckles from even the DNR personnel at the meeting I attended when he “just couldn’t understand why they couldn’t get people from Des Moines or Cedar Rapids to go down to the southern counties to hunt antlerless” (hence the need for all types of” attractants” such as rifles, special seasons etc.) He just does not get it…that there is no longer access, simply no way for them to gain permission to hunt. If you do not understand the problem then how does one correct it?

The media, farm and insurance lobbies are another case in point. They assume the answer is simple…more hunters, more tags…more dead deer. This is one reason why they feel we should issue more NR tags. We have too many deer, so more tags equals more hunters equals a higher kill. Obviously, this is far from the truth but that is the extent of their knowledge.
We find ourselves always at odds with these factions but in this case, I am quite sure they would be most helpful in persuading our representatives that this proposal would be beneficial in reducing our deer herd in problem areas. We may disagree on the size of the problem or in some areas, if there is even a problem, but in this case, they may just be part of the solution.

I believe that all sides can be shown how making more efficient use of the hunters who do have access and the limited amount of time that they are a field will produce a higher percentage harvest of antlerless deer and there by reduce the reproductive capacity of our deer herd.
Any thoughts on the actual wording of the proposal?