Howler - I think you have captured the essence of the whole problem we have here in Kansas. (IMO)
If they would have some hard facts on deer numbers, then they could at least determine what parts of the state should or shouldn' t have a shortened season.
In the 80' s we had about half the deer numbers (or less) as we have today and well over 5000 (or more) Any Deer tags issued thru the draw - now we have less than 3700 Any Deer tags issued thru the draw and dropping fast. This is all happening because there is a general belief that the (Mule) deer herds are being decimented. It might well be fact, but where is the data. Where we hunt we are neck deep in Mule Deer and can' t get the Any Deer tags to hunt them. We have also heard that the VERY areas we hunt are the areas that are hardest hit for mule deer and has the most drastic reduction in numbers - is it propganda or fact?? Nobody in this state knows - that' s certain!
Hard data is required to verify that the tags do indeed need to be adjusted and that they are being correctly adjusted in the appropriate and corresponding areas. I' m an Engineer, I' m real easy to convince with hard verifiable data.
I personally have had the Any Deer tag issued to me only twice in the last 9 years(and I am a resident and I file religiously EVERY year). I don' t dispute that there might be a problem in the deer population that needs to be addressed - but it would sure be nice to have hard population figures with tag allotment vs. success rate figures at the game commission meetings when they make tag cuts(or adjustments. We NEVER go up in tag allotments). Heck we even have game commissioners complaining about the lack of data in the public meeting forums. Given the current situation I really think the NR hunters don' t really have a good chance here in Kansas of getting a really good tag(at this time). I think that is a big mistake. Here' s the rub - A NR has a better chance of getting a tag thru the T-tag system than he/she does going thru the state agency. Cost of that tag will be whatever the market value is at that time - it will probably be no worse than other states. The whole situation stinks because it is not inconceivable that in the future a resident hunter might well have a bigger problem getting the quality tags because a larger portion would be T-tag issued and less would be avaliable for the resident issues. Those tags will go where the money goes.
The data that we so badly need now would be the PERFECT tool to force some sanity into this T-tag situation.
BTW - I don' t really believe that shortening or lengthening the season has a thing to do with harvest numbers. In this state harvest is controlled by carcus tag - one tag, one deer - 2 tags, 2 deer, - etc. It has nothing to do with length of season! In this state almost ALL deer taken during the firearms season are taken in the first 5 days of the 13 day season (alot taken on the opening Wednesday and a huge amount take on the opening weekend - Saturday and Sunday). EXTREMELY few deer are killed after the first 5 days. Season length has absolutley nothing to do with harvest figures. Tag allotment vs. success rate is the secret and that' s why the lack of data is our biggest problem in this state.
When we stop hearing population suppositions, nonprofessional polling and about how our herds are being decimented and start seeing hard data on the subject(s), then and only then will our problems be on the path to resolution.
The bigger question is - Why don' t we have this data avaliable? If the projects I have worked or am currently working operated like this, I tell you with complete certainty our budgets would be cut and we would be out of business!!!!!
This whole lack of data issue is even more serious than the T-tag issue!!
Dave