Whether the harvest is first, second, or third in importance to a hunter doesnt make much difference.

An "antideer" type management scheme which needlessly greatly reduces harvest as well as sightings etc. is not a hunter friendly one.

If anyone could disagree with that assessment, then I feel that they have little need to have a weapon with them in the woods and be a "hiker" or nature observeer, as they would be just as happy without that harvest or opportunity to do so.

The quality of hunting isnt generally gauged by how many trillium are on yonder hillside whilst sitting there not caring about any deer that may or may not come by. lol.