This is exactly the argument I used when trying to communicate with the Illinois Dept. of Natural Resources regarding their decision to enact a two buck rule.

When Illinois went to the two buck annual limit a few years ago I attended their public meeting on this rule change. I don't know why they even bothered to have a public meeting except to meet the legal requirements because they told us, at that meeting, this new limit was an administrative rule and would go into effect no matter the opinions of the meetings. I insisted on knowing why these changes were being made. The IDNR response was that creating a limit was more 'correct'. When I questioned them on whether their 'rule' change was based on any biological basis, they told me that their harvest information (Illinois requires every deer harvested to be checked-in) revealed that the number of hunters who actually harvest more than the two bucks was too insignificant to have any effect on the herd, and, therefore, the rule would impact only an insignificant number of hunters who would oppose it.

My argument was that if the numbers were insignificant, why change it, because it would take guys that would harvest does out of woods before they could harvest all the does they normally would. (Myself included).