For the past 6-7 years in southern MI the DNR has made a focused attempt to address a significant overpopulation challenge with the whitetail herd. Their solutions have included "unlimited" antlerless tags in many areas (from 2003-2005 a tag per day could be purchased until the allotment ran out, and in many areas thousands of tags still went unsold), an extended antlerless only deer season during the final 10-12 days of December into very early January, extending the muzzleloader season for all deer from 10 to 17 days, etc. This past winter state biologists prepared written reports for each management unit, and in the majority of S MI units they indicated that the populations were still well over the goal, thus leading to overbrowsing of plant life, an unnacceptably number of car/deer accidents, crop damage concerns, etc. Despite all of these efforts, the overpopulation challenges exist, and over the past two seasons in southern MI only 51% of the total harvest has consisted of antlerless deer. What's the issue? In my estimation, it boils down to the fact that hunters in MI can tag two antlered deer per year on a "combo tag". A combo tag permits the hunter to harvest two antlered bucks during any combination of seasons. One of the tags does have a minimum antler restriction requirement. What we've found in MI is that the focus on pursuing multiple antlered bucks minimizes the attention which is needed and merited for keeping the population in control through an appropriate doe harvest. What does this have to do with Indiana? As you're involved in spreading the good news about the success of the OBR in terms of increasing record book entries & the number of bucks 2.5 years or older that are being harvested, don't lose sight of the fact that the antlerless deer harvest has also increased appreciably in recent years, in direct correlation to the implementation of the OBR. Anyone who believes that the increase in antlerless harvest is attributable just to the fact that more tags have become available needs only to look at the example in MI to understand that an abundance of tags doesn't automatically translate to increased harvest. The persistent struggles that the state of WI is also experiencing in keeping their population line provides further evidence of that fact. In 2001 the antlerless harvest in IN was 53.8% of the total harvest. In 2005 it was 58.2%. This is an increase of 4.4 points, or 8.2%. The number of antlerless deer harvested jumped from 54,806 in 2001 to 73,038 in 2005, which is a 33% jump. Looking at another one buck state, Ohio, their most recent available information is from 2004. Their antlerless harvest was 130,989 (60.5%) of their total harvest of 216,443. One of the least discussed facts about a one buck limit is how integral it is to achieving an adequate antlerless harvest. It seems to me that you'll greatly benefit if you keep this fact at the forefront of your efforts to educate others about the success of the OBR. While everyone loves having more big bucks around, much of the future of hunting will be tied into the public's understanding that a hunter's role is to be a good steward of the resource. Regulations that serve to maintain the population in harmony with the social and biological carrying capacity of the habitat are a win from any perspective. Better than any other alternative, a OBR accomplishes that.