"Mailman" said; "Really 80% could be lost as 20% harvest 80% of the deer..." If that is the case; and I have my doubts, it's obvious that those in the 20% would be glad to bear the extra burden ofpaying the increased cost. After all they are the 20% who benefit the most and fill their freezers with venison, so they would have no excuse whining about an increased licensing fee.

Sounds fair to me. In fact, if you harvest more than one buck and one doe there should be an escalating fee for additional deer taken. that might help to eleviate the money "shortfall" of the agency as well as improveopportunities for the other 80% to harvest a deer.

One should keep in mind that this is supposed to be a SPORT, and was never intended to be a major "Food (meat)Supply" for hunters. Many hunters are "harvesting" several deer each year through multiple available antlerless tags. And if their argument is that they give the meat away, I have to ask if those types of hunters have aphobia for killing?