ORIGINAL: Germ
ORIGINAL: brucelanthier
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
Bruce:
Fair enough. But....do you think the number of people hunting deer in MD would go down if deer didn't have antlers? Do you think the harvest numbers would go down?
If the answer to either of those questions is "yes"....then you would need a more liberal season. That's all I was thinking....and again....it's just an opinion.
That would depend on if you think casual hunters are after deer or antlers. Personally, IMO, I think casual hunters are after deer. An avid hunter would be after antlers. Just read threads here about how the avid hunters have set antler minimums to challenge themselves. I just read something by a guide/hunter thatsaid he would tag out early and hunt something else but he would still shoot the same amount of deer. So, it is IMO that even the avid hunter, the one that is actually after antlers, would still tag out also.
Bruce I think we look at this as what we know now. In MI the casual hunteris after some antler
.
This is just how I view it.
That is a fair point. I am sure that in the "deer states" the casual hunter is different in that respectthan in the other states but then, how many deer states are there? Also, using that logic I am assuming that the casual hunter is as heavy into QDM as he is antlers?
When you talk of a loss of money are you talking nationwide/industrywide or your neck of the woods?