To keep the buck kill numbers where they wanted them without reducing hunter numbers. Like I said, like the study said, like Starry said and like the biologist said.
I said you don't seem to grasp the numbers, because either you don't or you are being intellectually dishonest.
-You are implying they should have increased hunter numbers after going to trad gear, when the goal was to reduce buck kill numbers without reducing hunter numbers. If they increased hunter numbers, not only would it offset the reduced buck kill numbers gained by the trad only rule...it would not be logistically possible to run very many more people through in a weekend.
-2 choices were put forth to achieve their goal, reduce hunter numbers or lower their success rate with equipment restrictions. They chose the latter. Whether it was to allow us a better chance at gaining access through higher odds at getting the draw, or to stick the middle finger in the face of all the folks that don't/can't/won't use a stickbow....that's your call I guess. I just don't think it was that nefarious myself, and I'm a cynic.
Just kidding, it was all done to get your proverbial goat.
BTW, MCAAP harvest success data cannot be usefully compared to any states general harvest data because their are far too many variables. I agree x-bows won't make much of a difference in any states harvest, that's most often the case. MCAAP is a small, very controlled, highly managed place. Small variables make a big difference there, as the data has shown over the last few decades. Big difference between a managed herd on 45,000 acres and an entire state. Both in management goals (a states management goal is not the same as the goal at MCAAP) and the effect of reg changes.
