I think you'd get 575 duzen answers with that question, to be honest.

Personally, I don't have to see or want to see 30 or 40 deer every time I go out "like the good ol' days" because I think those numbers were too high. I don't go out to watch deer. If I want to watch deer then I'll go to Cades Cove and have a Red Bull while cruising with Maw-Maw to enjoy wildlife. During hunting season I want to kill what I want and think we need, period, and it does not have to have rack-monster antlers or even any antlers at all.

As a state we went from virtually no deer, to "don't shoot does or you'll go to hell" and growing populations, to probably over-populated situations in many areas, to "kill more does" and 2-a-day for maybe too long with predation and disease also affecting mortality, to where we are today ... which is some areas probably OK and some are hurting badly.

IF this check-in system is accepted and IF it works with Matt and the other deer biologists obtaining good usable information and IF the lever-pullers and political shitstirrers in Mungumry and elsewhere allow them to make biological-based decisions then it could possibly help. Those are big "if" situations, though I think they're starting to be accepted.

Ohio has, as in that earlier post on this thread, a rigid check system and has drilled down to specific counties/zones. Their hunters STILL complain about their deer population. Wisconsin does the same and they have county-by-county groups that meet to discuss deer numbers and suggest things to the state.