I don't think you can say that for the whole state. There are some areas that do need more deer killed, but there are also some areas that need to back off the doe slaying.
The whole state is exactly what I'm talking about.
The specifics of individual properties were not used to implement qdm limits... they were implemented statewide. A tagging rule would follow the same logic... manage statewide, not specifically.
306,000 fewer deer killed than qdm advocates and you're bringing up tagging rules being needed??
If equal numbers of does and bucks of that 306,000 had been killed, that leaves 153,000 more bucks that could have been killed without "harming the health of the herd" as the liberal qdm bunch preaches it.
Which "hole in the bucket" are we going to use as a reason for the next rule to restrict legitimate hunters from killing deer???
