I could do the definition of "context" too but I'll skip it.
I called the "Joe Regular" in the example a whiner, no one in this thread.
You and I both know that the Joe Regular example and the hunters who never think there are enough deer are The Rule and folks like you are The Exception.
I hear about all these "legitimate complaints" but the only indication that they are legitimate is the anecdotes that accompany them.
There are claims of a huge increase in genetically inferior deer, for example, but no actual data to back it up.
The same is true of hunter drop out rates. Lots of claims, little or no data.
It's hard for me to imagine that you can hunt in a place that's infested with deer, a no doubt result of the "old system", and you think the best suggestion is to go back to the old system.
An over-abundance of deer, outside of a carefully managed ranch-style system, ALWAYS results in a massive imbalance in the gender ratio. Wouldn't an "Earn-A-Buck" system be an improvement? Say a hunter has to shoot 2 antlerless deer before he can shoot a buck. Most hunters want to shoot more and bigger bucks. Shooting more doe and fewer bucks until the hunters could "earn" a buck tag would serve to improve the ratio, by increasing the number of bucks and decreasing the number of does, WITHOUT dramatically (rapidly) reducing the population. The birth rate would nearly keep up with the kill rate but more bucks would survive and more doe would die, improving the ratio. Almost no one would be forced to pass on any deer after year one or two. They'd have shot enough doe that they would have several "earned" buck tags.
That's not a better idea than the old system? Why? There's plenty of deer. No one goes hungry. The population would be managed long-term and the ratios would be corrected.
We're 8 pages in here and I keep asking for data and keep getting emotion based responses and anecdotes. I guess I don't have anything more to debate unless some data is presented. I feel like an open-minded reader would see that at least my opinions are data rather than emotion/anecdote based. They can make up their own minds.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.