I agree with that 100%! Now I want an honest opinion, no right or wrong answer here. In the case of said poll you feel it isnt right that outside influences dictate the outcome of a license increase, correct? So here on one hand you do NOT want outside influence in judging a license increase. Im also going to assume you do NOT want outside funding? Correct? On the other hand you agree with a DMP that favors outside influence(stakeholders)? How do we accomplish that while maintaining good relations with the prime supporter(hunters)? We've been losing hunters and their support for years. Its time to stop this nonsense or do a complete 180 and combine the agencies.
I agree that nonhunters shouldn't have a say in a license increase.
Actually when I mentioned the "outsiders" that may have been included in the poll, it was meant to be in the context of whether or not they really knew what their answer meant. Any poll question that simply asks whether the participants want to see a tax or fee go up is usually received with the type of negative response shown in the poll you cited.
As for your question about the influence of outside stakeholders, who are the outsiders? Certainly the farmers, timber companies and other landowners who feed and house the deer all through the year arent outsiders are they? How about the state agencies charged with the duty of administering our state forest on behalf of all the taxpayers? I believe that we as hunters make up about 10% of the population. The fact that most state land is open to hunting probably provides hunters as much or more benefit from these lands than most groups will ever see. I'm sure we'd all be happier if there were a way to have quality deer in large quantity without detracting from the interests of those whom we have to thank for feeding and housing our deer. It's been said that when different interests all want a piece of the pie, you will know a fair compromise has been reached when all parties walk away still wanting a little more.
You also mention the loss of hunters and that is a disturbing trend throughout this entire country. Every time we lose three hunters, we only gain about two back. That's pretty close to the national average but we could and should do better. One thing that stands out among the states not losing as many hunters is less red tape and a more liberal (hate that word but it fits here) starting age for new hunters. The mentored hunting program is a good start but we need to keep building on that.