CWD Argumentative Analysis

446 Words2 Pages
All of the alternatives are affective for different reasons. They are all quite unique. All of the alternatives suggested will improve deer populations, for better or worse. Antler restrictions and less tags will naturally raise the deer population since there will be less shooting of deer with less tags and hunters are forced to let the smaller bucks go. Shooting less deer in CWD areas and being more selective on areas where tags are distributive seems to be more affective of the problem. The CWD strategy alternative would be the most expensive, since it would require finding the pockets of CWD ridden deer. Most of the costs would just consist of printing out the new rules in the regulation pamphlet that is already in the DNR’s budget.…show more content…
The political viability of these alternatives are pretty good. The least likely alternative would be the antler restrictions. This would be a permanent change, meaning that this could limit people from shooting deer for a long time. People need to meat.

Conclusion The Wisconsin deer population is considerably low. It is affecting many hunters and their families all over the state. Hunters for the past few years have been going out into the woods and only see a couple deer in a whole weekend. It’s a waste of time and they are not going home with food to feed their families. As stated earlier, the deer numbers used to be extremely high in 2000. Things are so bad now that last year in comparison to 2000, there were 300,000 less deer harvested. All of the alternatives suggested should be considered by the Wisconsin state legislature and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Most of these alternatives can have multiple variations. Tag limits can be changed and adjusted. Antler restrictions can be bigger or smaller. The state could invest in CWD research. Each of these alternatives have their strengths and their
Open Document