[alphazard]

> And also, the laws mean that harvest numbers will be lower. It lets the state sell MORE licenses and tags than the number of deer they want to be actually taken, so they make more money.

Ahh, this is the kind of answer I was hoping for. Thank you.

[dan-0]

It's not wrong, but it's also a bit more nuanced if you're unfamiliar. Many state wildlife departments use this money to put it back into public parks and protecting more at risk wildlife. There are some species that continue to live purely because of these structures.

[SheepSlapper]

Oh, I'm not talking shit about the way the money is used, I almost unilaterally endorse it! The money isn't 1:1 supporting hunting, and that's not the point of the money anyway, it's for conservation. When the department is focused on preservation, us hunters are happy to support even things we're not doing (parks, nature trails, etc).

Recently, there are more activists joining my state's DFW, which is trying to subvert the original goal of preserving the balance between us and natural resources. Those people can go piss up a rope, because their naive understanding of the natural balance of these ecosystems is trumped by ideology. But in a perfect world, I'm happy to give the state a few hundred bucks that goes to preservation even if I don't have success during my hunts, because it's a worthwhile goal.