Some of us are blessed with a loving spouse or daughters who block the front door and refuse to move until we change into clothes that won't invite snickers or public scorn.

One often wishes families would expand that service by editing their loved one's notes before they speak at public hearings. This is especially true when the issue involves white-tailed deer.

But maybe that's why we appoint seven citizens to the Natural Resources Board. Maybe they're better prepared than loved ones to take one for the team. For example, we let the Board decide if it's really so awful to let people gun-hunt deer for four days in October. We further trust them to navigate the nuances of moving that season from Halloween to Oct. 16-19, and decide whether it will rend Wisconsin's social fabric.

When the Board convened April 23, they again heard tales of personal woe and claims of wrong-doing by the agency they oversee, the Department of Natural Resources. For instance, a Wisconsin Bowhunters Association spokesman said: "We do not need (the early archery season — which lasts 10 weeks) interrupted by firearms hunting in early October or late October. Not only does it prevent us from harvesting animals for four days, it also makes it mandatory to wear blaze orange."

A spokesman for the Safari Club asked: "Can we afford to lose thousands or even one more deer hunter because they believe their right to hunt with reasonable regulations has been denied?"

And a spokesman for two bicycling organizations said: "An October gun-hunt is asking off-road bicyclists to make yet another concession of their preferred activity to the interest of another group. This new concession will affect a much larger number of users and present a greater economic impact to those whose financial well-being depends on off-road bicycling than the concessions we make each November."

But unlike legislators, DNR Board members can be trusted to stay in the room long enough to hear something besides "me, me, me."

For instance, Jane Severt of Merrill, executive director of the Wisconsin County Forests Association, said: "The large deer herd is taking a toll on our forests. They're hampering regeneration across the state. Plant species and plant diversity are disappearing from the landscape because of high deer numbers."

Conservationist Lee Swanson of Cross Plains said: "The science stands on its own merits and the goal here is good conservation for the woods. I admit when I'm grouse hunting in October, I'd rather have just grouse hunters in the woods, but I didn't like some of the rules my mother gave me, and I don't like some of the rules the DNR gives me. Unless we operate with some of those rules, we won't reach (herd population) goals."

And UW-Madison botanist Don Waller said: "Please pay attention to the evidence that shows deer are altering the diversity of plant species for decades to come. The DNR takes their responsibilities seriously. Support their recommendations. To do otherwise is to disrespect the evidence, the professional competence of our staff, (Aldo) Leopold's warnings and our strong tradition of informed and responsible wildlife management."

After hearing similar support from 11 of 16 citizens, most of whom were hunters, the DNR Board voted 7-0 to approve the extra gun-hunt and require hunters in about 40 percent of Wisconsin to shoot an antlerless deer before trying for a buck.

In effect, the Board is moving on. It has listened to doubters and malcontents long enough. It has put them on deer committees. It has funded the research they requested. It has even let them help choose the research team that scrutinized the DNR's methods for estimating deer.

But when the research, scientific data and hunting-season experiments didn't pan out the way critics desired, they offered no credible alternatives.

The Board's 7-0 message is clear: The public's collective good — and Wisconsin's natural resources — require self-sacrifice, not self-indulgence.