Many "hunters" are dumb when it comes to knowing what the deer herd needs. Proof is that EAB had to be implemented before most hunters would shoot a doe regardless of what year it is. Many "hunters" are dumb when it comes to knowing what the deer herd needs. Proof is that EAB had to be implemented before most hunters would shoot a doe regardless of what year it is.
Okay...but then you say...
They haven't changed since the time of the market hunters. They willshoot as much as they can, eventhough they can't use all the meat themselves.
Let me see if I follow this train of thought: Hunters will not shoot does unless told to do so by the DNR, but on the other hand hunters "will shoot as much as they can, even though they can't use all the meat themselves"
Which is it?! If the point in the second quote is really true, then EAB was never necessary since hunters will have a natural tendency to shoot more deer than they need or can use. "Market hunters" did not simply shoot antlered bucks and let the does run by...they shot everything they saw. So, if such base tendencies still exists as you suggest, then the answer all along should have been to give a free antlerless tag or two out with each license. Yes, not everyone would use it, but do you want to bet that someone else in the hunting party would? The guys who like to shoot all the time will more than make up for the guys who don't again if your logic holds. Of course, the DNR does'tt want to have that discussion about availability of antlerless tages, since up until very recently...in fact not even 10 years ago!..., to shoot a doe you needed to either :1) get a "hunters choice" sticker to have the "privledge" of shooting a doe, or 2) apply for an antlerless tag, and once approved send the DNR some more money to get a doe tag.
Lots of farmers give away ag-tags to shoot as many deer as possible.
Ag-tags are not unlimited, so they do not even have the ability "to shoot as many deer as possible". Besides, if the DNR was accurate in saying that most units are over goal, how is that a bad thing?
They don't want crop damage, they want the deer gone.
So let me get this straight: we should keep EAB so that we don't have a population issue, but the evil farmers are going to kill off too many deer because "they want the deer gone". So if the DNR "wants the deer gone" by having t-zones, EAB, special December antlerless hunts, so-called "eradication zones"...it's a good thing, but if a farmer wants to lower the deer population to protect his livelihood, it is a bad thing. So you are saying we need EAB to keep the herd in check, but the evil farmers are going to shoot too many deer if we get rid of it. Hmmmmm....want to think that one over again??....
You say you want more deer, but you want farmers to do whatever they want. Hello, who owns the biggest portion of property in our state?
That's right...THEY OWN THE LAND!!! They make their livelihood on that land. They pay the taxes for that land and the income they generate.
And...as you just said, they "own the biggest portion of property in our state" so they should have a very, very, VERY big say in how the herd is managed!