"In that example I'm referring to the greatly diminished hunting pressure in the gun season , especially in the Northern tier on opening day of rifle. Instead of "game over" by Monday at dark after the "big shoot" the hunting is good all season long."
Not sure how its good all season when you're starting out with rock bottom deer densities to start with. lol Previously there were far more POST SEASON deer than there are now PRESEASON deer in that area. That fact doesnt really support your contention????
"Your opinion and mine are based on the handfuls of folks we interact with in person and online."
Thats true for yours, and partially mine. But mine goes further yet with the legislators statements & surveys. And pgcs own survey which showed greatly declining support for the deer program, the conclusion of the study which is due out some time this year..
"Too few in some small spots? also agree."
You dont agree with me, because thats not my position. Most of the state has been unnecessarily reduced to some extent.
"Less deer is something we needed most places
Many places, yes. Most? Thats very debatable. We can give opinions based on nothing...Or if we are to base it on anything, then the answer has to be no. Because over most of the state, there is absolutely nothing that supports the current herd levels, and in many cases continuing decline despite claims of stabilization.
"Better hunting in spite of lower numbers? I think so. Better average bucks and better average doe size and it's still easy to find em in good numbers
good numbers is open to interpretation. The average hunter isnt seeing good numbers of deer currently.
As for average buck size, its a meaningless stat.
Afterall, whats better... 50% of 100 or 75% of 50?? If we are talking about anything that would be beneficial to have more of, ... Id suggest grabbing the 50% as opposed to the 75....