I do respect my guys and gals in the wildlife biology field. But, I do believe there is a flaw in the process. It takes years to study a topic, more years to validate, more years to publish and by the time they have done all that the information is outdated because the topic has changed and no longer the same.

Example, I remember when I was a young adult going deer hunting and seeing 30-40 doe a day. Back then we had 3-5 doe days per county or something like that. But, they were held after Christmas and by then the deer had been hunted a couple of months and wary. Of course, this the same time the coyotes started showing up in these areas. After several years the doe days/seasons were changed. We started killing a lot more doe deer. Row cropping was declining and pine tree farming was increasing. Hunting clubs were becoming a lot more common. Land just wasn't as accessible as it used to be. More coyotes in the state.

Basically, what I am trying to demonstrate is that there were lots of variables in play and decisions were being made off of older data. There has to be some common sense applied in real time.