TJD

Hmmm...okay...

Let me see if I understand the logic of that prediction: Hunters (folks like us), landowners, and farmers are all too dumb or lacking enough in foresight to not look out for their own best interests, so we need to have the DNR to tell us what to do. Yep...and how did that logic work out in the CWD areas, where the herd is now about where it was back in 2002 when the DNR created the "eradication zone"? Seems the only thing the DNR "eradicated" was the good will of the landowners in the "zone". Back to the apparent logic of the argument:
[ul][*]Hunters are too dumb: well, obviously they do not understand that too many deer reduces the chances of seeing trophy bucks, so the intellect of the DNR is needed to make sure they do the right thing.[*]Landowners are too dumb: same as above, plus they love having property values ultimately reduced since the lack of trophy deer means fewer potential buyers looking to buy prime hunting land.[*]Farmers are too dumb: we know how they absolutely love crop damage over and above what crop insurance would reimburse them for, so of course we need the DNR to tell them to shoot more and more deer because, apparently, they are unable to balance a checkbook and understand that too many deer actually costs them money.[/ul]

The theme here seems similar to that expressed by those who think higher taxes are a good thing, since only the brain trust employed by the government, not the people,is smart enough to decide how and where their hard earned money should be spent. God-forbid the money be spent on something like an evil SUV, pickup truck,or...GASP!...a gun! The government has much better plans for your money!

Back to hunting:Keep in mind thatit is not 1980 anymore, where hunters who shot doeswere vilified by hunterswho thought it almosta sin. That is not the case anymore. Smooth-heads will still get harvested if EAB goes away, especially if they continue to provide a free tag for just that purpose.Oh, and let me remind folks...remember when the DNR told us two years ago that if you had a 2:1 ratio of does to bucks harvested in your area, you would be removed from EAB? Funny, but our unit, 61, did just that and then some. We were told that...alas...the DNR meant that your whole region had to have a 2:1 ratio for that to occur. So because a unit 150 miles away falls short, why that must mean my unit is also "overpopulated".

And you wonder why the DNR has credibility issues??

Perhaps all of this will at least get the DNR to change their tone and deal honestly and in a spirit of cooperation with all stakeholders,rather than acting as a power unto themselves who are accountable to no one.