I am not sure how others feel about this, but I think it is wrong. So the heard population goes down, which means more natural feed and browse for the remaining deer. Then in a couple of years and a mild winter or two and the population is back up there. Shouldn't "Mother Nature" just do her thing?
well not sure its wrong but at least its not tax dollars but im from and still hunt in Ohio and you do notice in the deer and turkey population when there is a harsh winter i wasnt born yet but the 78 blizzard wiped out the Ohio pheasant population and have been told by alot of old timers it was some of the best pheasant hunting in the east so if there in danger of losing massive amounts of deer then its good but just trying to help them find food bad i mean when a deer dies it must be something wrong or very old age when they do die then and another animal such as a coyote will live and feed off the dead dear along with other scavengers its just the way the life cycle goes im an outdoorsmen and have been for a very long time and will be for the rest of my life if it allows more people to have a better chance of harvesting a deer good but i see Minnesota alot on hunting shows so if they are trying to keep the heard up to sell more 5000 10000 dollar hunts then its defiantly bad