No, I certainly don’t think our deer numbers are high in most areas of the state. I too see far fewer deer then I used to see. Nor do I think we need to take the numbers lower then they are in most areas of the state, though there are a few areas that I do believe need to have fewer deer now or they are going to have a lot fewer in the future then they have now.

I support the present scientific approach to managing deer based on the information the deer and the habitat provide. In some areas that will mean fewer deer but I think those areas in need of even just slightly fewer deer are very few. In most areas if they allowed this management program to work it would mean more deer for the future then we have now, instead of fewer.

I want the professionals to use that scientific information to make the best informed decisions in the total deer management program instead of having public and political demands forcing even more areas into the poor management, destroyed habitat and crashed deer numbers some areas have today.

The professional deer managers can get it right if people just allow them to do it. There is no conspiracy to harm the deer herd or hurt the future of hunting. Nor, is anyone in bed with an enemy of the hunters. The professionals only want to do what is best for the future to benefit our resources and our hunters. But, they presently can’t do what is best for anyone because to many people are convinced they, and all government, is somehow out to shaft them. That simply is not the case, at least with the Game Commission.

It seems many people want deer management by opinion instead of using scientifically supported data from the deer and the habitat. I simply can’t support that idea, I have seen it too many times in the past. It hasn’t worked in the past and it will not work in the future either. Besides, just who’s opinion should they use, yours, mine, the anti-hunter or just who’s? I would much prefer the voice of the deer, through the scientific data they provide. Somehow I think they are the ones most likely to get it right.

R.S. Bodenhorn